PlayStation 5 120FPS Mode vs. PC 120FPS: Benchmarks & Graphics Quality Comparison

we built some custom console benchmarking software for the playstation 5 and the xbox and we're using it on the playstation 5 to match it to an equivalent pc in terms of performance part of this included matching the graphics settings between the games that we used so we went through the playstation 5 graphics and compared them side by side scene by scene one setting at a time versus that game on the pc and then we chose hardware on the pc to get roughly equivalent performance in frame rate using our software between the ps5 and the pc so this allows us to see what level of hardware what combination of gpu and cpu on a pc would equate a playstation 5 in terms of the graphics capabilities and the frame rate before that this video is brought to you by squarespace squarespace is what we've been using for years to manage our own gamer's nexus store and we've been incredibly happy with the choice squarespace makes e-commerce easy for those interested in starting stores but it also has powerful tools to build all types of websites photo galleries for photographers resume and portfolio sites and small business sites are all easily done through squarespace having built a lot of client websites the old way before running gn full time we can easily recommend squarespace as a powerful fast solution go to squarespace.com gamersnexus to get 10 off your first purchase with squarespace at launch of the playstation 5 and the xbox series x there were few truly new games available immediately and even still they're slowly starting to roll out so next gen consoles have been leaning on or i guess current gen now on a few features required to differentiate themselves from the previous ones the playstation 5 for example is claiming it can output 8k it says it can do 4k 120 hertz it has variable refresh rate and that's a sort of freesync enabled it can render ray traced effects now well at least some of that is true sony's faq from about a month or two ago states that the ps5 is compatible with 8k displays at launch and after a future system software update it will be able to output resolutions up to 8k when content is available with software supported in other words when it launched it couldn't actually do 8k at all so saying it's compatible with 8k displays is kind of pointless in that regard it could also be worded as compatible with things that have hdmi ports also it said after a future system software update ps5 owners will be able to use vrr features of compatible tvs when playing games that support variable refresh rate so all of that the fact that these things were largely deferred until post launch left us with high refresh and ray tracing as the most interesting aspects to us and then beyond that comparing the performance between a pc and a playstation 5. so today we'll be focusing on 120fps mode in a couple of the very few games that support it we'll be attempting to match the ps5's performance using pc hardware at 1080p some ps5 games can nominally run at 4k with high frame rate mode enabled but they frequently use upscaling or dynamic resolution changes to do so which makes direct comparisons to pc performance more difficult eurogamer maintains an updated list of games that they've confirmed will include 120 fps capability and not all of them have been updated yet of the ones that have been we selected three for testing dirt 5 devil may cry 5 and borderlands 3. ultimately though even if you're not playing these specific games again the goal is to match the performance between them see how much would you have to spend on an equivalent in terms of performance and graphics pc to match a playstation 5. testing methodology for this mostly included patrick digging through the graphic settings on the pc and one by one matching them to the console i got to observe as over a period of a few days he would stare very closely at a square of pixels on a screen to try and determine precisely what setting was equivalent to the console it's not easy to match them and they're not always exactly like for like because they are different packages of the games even if it's the same game at the heart of it so that was the main thing that we had to do and beyond that we use our own software for measuring the performance of the console and we compare that with our standard measurement methods for pc gaming so devil may cry 5 will start us out this one launched in march of last year or of 2019 and the updated special edition for new consoles has some added features sony categorizes this edition as a native playstation 5 game and it does that rather than calling it a ps4 game running backwards compatible with ps5 this was one of the reasons that we chose it because it's technically a native ps5 title and ultimately whether or not you're actually playing the mc5 again the goal is to determine the level of performance and graphics quality between them one of the few features that is currently fully available in theory on the playstation 5 is ray tracing and that's something that capcom has said it currently has no plans to bring into the pc release fortunately that doesn't affect our testing here since we already planned to disable ray tracing on the ps5 version for maximum performance since that's our real goal today get into the pc match settings and hardware then we'll start with devil may cry 5. this one's been out on pc for some time now so at least the behavior of that version is well documented at this point ray tracing is the only graphical feature that the non-special pc version lacks multiple graphics options usually the ones that marked with variable in the settings menu only take effect in cut scenes which can afford to prioritize visuals over raw performance obviously by the nature of a cutscene we've matched all the pc settings to the console's high performance or no ray tracing mode as closely as possible but we won't be using cut scenes for performance analysis because we think that the gameplay for this one the frame rate of gameplay matters more than the cutscene frame rate unlike dirt 5 which we'll talk about later it does seem possible to precisely match the appearance of the console version of the game on pc with the exception of ray tracing which we aren't using for this hardware comparison anyway as for the settings for devil may cry 5 we used the settings on the screen now you can pause if you want to read them dmc 5 on pc is a very light cpu workload so we chose an r3 3300x for the cpu we could have gone lower still because this game really only loads a couple of cores at a time but the 3300x is already at the low end of modern gaming cpus and we consider it appropriate for budget builds that might be the closest or the most capable of matching the ps5's price at 400 to 500 it may not be an 8 core 16 thread part but that's not necessarily the point we had some difficulty finding a gpu that would bottleneck the performance enough for this test we eventually settled on a gtx 1066 gigabyte a card that at this point is more than four years old we found the gtx 1070 performed a little too well to match the playstation 5 and was over doing the performance we'd also considered an rx 580 we looked at a 570 as an example but ultimately the 1060 six gigabyte got us the closest devil may cry 5 has two graphics toggles on console ray tracing on or off and then there's also high frame rate mode on or off this makes it somewhat unusual that the options menu isn't structured as a binary choice between graphical quality or high frame rate instead you can mix them at launch there were four preset profiles to choose from normal mode high frame rate mode ray tracing performance mode and then just ray tracing quality mode in each of these the frame rate cap was actually 120 fps so even in the non-high frame rate modes the frame rate was still allowed to rise above 60 fps if it could in situations where the hardware was capable from our pc background that's a good thing we think that if the hardware can do more frames it should be allowed to do more frames ultimately after complaints though capcom patched the graphics menu to its current state where there's a 60fps cap in all situations without high performance mode enabled and in the process it confirmed that the original behavior was intended and not a bug this is the first time we've heard of players demanding that a developer add a 60fps cap but we don't normally cover console stuff hopefully the new menu will satisfy everyone though we chose an area near the beginning of the game with reflective puddles flames and some distant scenery as our benchmark measured with our standard average one percent and 0.1 low metrics the frame rate for the ps5 was 109 fps average with dips to 39 fps and 34 fps for one percent and 0.1 lows respectively for the pc the result in the same area with settings that we matched to each other was 142 fps average with lows at 117 one percent and 112 fps 0.1 percent that marks the pces 31 higher in average frame rate when running with the r3 3300x and gtx 1060 six gigabyte now ultimately frame rate is like most metrics flawed in some ways namely that this one is an abstracted metric away from the base metric of time it turns into a rate we mentioned this only because it's easy to understand frame rate's something everyone's familiar with so it's still useful the one percent lows and 0.1 lows help us to identify devices with a problem so the playstation for example clearly was dragging in that metric and it's especially useful when looking at a gpu or a cpu review chart filled with dozens of components to take advantage of the lows though we need to look at a frame time plot for the frame to frame interval when we see a problem or weird behavior emerging here's a frame time plot of the playstation 5 running one of the test passes described in the fps chart a moment ago keep in mind that unlike pc benchmarks capturing console performance is limited to the speed of the capture which is limited by hardware interfaces so you'll see some oscillating based on that for our capture on the consoles we're capturing at 240fps a higher frame time is worse but the most important thing is that the frame times are consistent from one to the next excursions from frame n minus one greater than eight to twelve milliseconds will become noticeable to some players while excursions greater than that will be noticeable to most players especially if they start happening in succession or relative succession near each other excursions smaller than this are inconsequential to gameplay and almost no one will notice the highest frame times we observed on the ps5 were marked at 29.16 milliseconds with some regularity throughout the test the fact that they're consistent means that you're not going to notice a ton of stutter or choppiness it's when there's a big spike that becomes more noticeable we measured one outlier frame out of all the test passes that took 33.33 milliseconds and was preceded by eight millisecond and four millisecond frames on average though twenty nine point one six was the one that was dragging down the one percent point one percent lows because it repeats with relative consistency and that's where you start to see the big difference between how the pc and the console play this game the ps5 isn't able to run above 120 fps therefore its average numbers can't benefit from the occasional ultra fast frame the way the pc version can't for the pc the average frame time was 7 milliseconds per frame across all tests with a 0.1 low of 8.9 even the single worst frame out of all of the test passes on pc took 9.6 milliseconds and these worst frames really only start to matter when the excursions are such that they cause an observable stutter to the player 9.6 doesn't do that the goal here was to equal the ps5 though not to beat it but we chose to stick with the 1060 given the results from our next two games you could downclass the gpu in this system and still match the ps5's dmc 5 settings on lower end hardware than we've chosen but a 4 year old gpu seems like a good stopping point if there are any new viewers who are unfamiliar with our one percent and point one percent calculations we calculate these by taking the longest one percent and the longest point one percent frame times for a test pass and then we average them because we often do multiple test passes per device like four for example for all of our gpus at a minimum we're typically working with data sets in the tens of thousands of rows per configuration depending on how high that frame rate is so a gpu where you're running 500 fps you could easily have upwards or above 100 000 rows of data because the frame rate is so high but uh console's a little bit lower either way we're working with a large data set and we calculate these per test pass and then we average them together across multiple passes in instances where we discuss these numbers as frame rates we then divide 1000 by the result one thing that sticks out when looking at our capture is that some frames render more quickly than 8.33 milliseconds which should be the maximum for a console displaying at 120. this is because we captured at fps which allows delayed frames where you might have a delayed animation for example to show up late rather than being skipped we captured some footage at 120fps to demonstrate this at this speed if a frame takes more than 8.33 milliseconds but less than 16.67 to arrive it's not captured and the results show a 16.67 millisecond frame time if we switch to our live frame time chart over the game footage built using our custom software the chart becomes more regular and it corresponds to what a user with a 120 hertz display would actually see but it makes the ps5's performance appear worse in data by discarding those delayed frames the result is that the average frame time for this test is 9.7 milliseconds versus 9.2 for our normal test passes about a 5 increase in performance while the worst case frame time spikes show a much lesser percent change since the point of this piece is to compare console and pc performance at the same graphics we made an intentional decision to capture at the highest frame rate possible dirt 5 had a somewhat rocky launch judging by the steam reviews but it can still serve as a software test regardless of the fact that it seems like no one likes it in examining footage captured from the ps5 we run into another tricky aspect of testing and one that hasn't often been an issue on consoles before and that's screen tearing something that we've seen a lot in pc space but is new to the console audience screen tearing is a phenomenon that occurs when frames are rendered out of sync with a display there are multiple ways to work around this including variable refresh rate methods like g-sync or freesync but we'll ignore those for now a monitor without those features displays frames at a set frequency like 60hz or 120 hertz while non-vsynced games can render at whatever frequency they want we're a pc focused site so we're used to disabling vsync whenever possible while in the past on console games have almost universally forced vsync video capture behaves like a non-vrr display recording frames at a set frequency that does not vary so tears manifest in recordings as well tears fit into two general categories at least for what we're talking about today type one is a low performance tear let's plot a few display refresh intervals as examples so for display refresh interval one for convenience we assume this shows a unique fully rendered frame and we'll call that frame one display refresh too the bottom of the display shows a new and unique frame too but the top of the display still shows frame one system side rendering was completed and submitted after the monitor refresh period started so the already drawn top part of the frame shows old data and the bottom part shows new data screens draw scan lines from the top left to the bottom right so you may only get a few scans that show part of the new frame for display refresh interval 3 this could be the completed fully rendered second frame and therefore a partial duplicate of display refresh 2 or it could be a fully rendered frame 3 or some torn combination of the two for type 2 of the tears that we're talking about today this is a high performance one display refresh interval one again starts with a unique frame one display refresh interval two system side the game is being rendered so quickly that multiple frames are completed and submitted while the monitor or the capture device slogs along creating multiple tears in a single displayed frame with the stripes showing newer data the lower they are on the screen the top of the frame shows a new frame too but the bottom shows an even newer frame 3. the monitor displays the newest possible information reducing the perceived latency display refresh interval 3 since the system is outpacing the display there will be no duplicate data shown from the previous displayed frame unlike type 1 and that covers the two relevant types of tears for this content tearing is almost 100 guaranteed to occur without intentionally avoiding it via vsync vrr or some other method but type 2 the higher performance one is generally harder to detect because of the higher frame rate and smaller differences between the frames and the tears dirt 5 is the only of the games that we tested that is not v-synced in high frame rate mode so since the ps5 targets 120 fps and we're capable of capturing up to 1080 to 40 for output it's unlikely we'll encounter type 2 of terrain that we described a moment ago the console will not outpace our capture rate and that's good because the methodology breaks down there the method we and other outlets used for measuring frame times on consoles relies on comparing consecutive frames of captured footage called on display if a game renders a bunch of frames on present that aren't captured or displayed they aren't counted which is fundamentally different from the way that we and most people benchmark on pc from the perspective of our pc frame time logging software display refresh and therefore the screen tearing are irrelevant we routinely record averages well above 400 fps in rainbow six siege for example and we don't use a 400 hertz monitor to do so on consoles we have to reverse engineer the frame times based on the captured footage which forces tearing back into the discussion let's look at that double may cry 5 pc frame time chart again as an example the yellow line is the same one we showed earlier logs via software using exactly the same method that we employ for all pc benchmarking the blue line is a simulation of what our console frame time analysis software would output for the same bench pass captured at 240 fps and the red line is what would be output if we captured it at 120 fps the red line can never dip below 8.33 milliseconds the blue line can never dip below 4.17 milliseconds more frames per second captured means a smaller and more accurate unit of measurement and the resulting graph will look more and more like the yellow line note that analyzing captured footage can report numbers that are larger or smaller than the true frame times the blue line oscillates between 4.17 and 8.33 milliseconds because the real average frame time is somewhere in between one frame could complete rendering three milliseconds before it was captured and then the next could complete rendering immediately before it's captured and the reported frame time would still only be 4.17 milliseconds total because two consecutive frames of the captured footage were unique in the end average frame times are fairly accurate as long as the frame rate doesn't outpace the capture the true average frame time for this pass was 7.07 milliseconds the average when captured at 240 fps would be 7.07 milliseconds and the average one captured at 120 fps would be 8.34 milliseconds this is why we're still confident in our average fps numbers the frame comparison method has another interesting consequence which is that only type 1 screen tears can be efficiently detected type 2 screen tears are completely distinct from the previous displayed frame so a dumb comparison between frames doesn't work but they're also less necessary to detect since they show new data even with the type of tears that are easy to detect we've debated internally about how to represent them it hasn't been an issue with our previous console benchmarks since the games are typically v-synced and it's never been an issue with our pc benchmarks since we can measure frame times directly without sidelining the issue now though we have to decide how to give credit when a game partially completes drawing a new frame with a console and specifically how to credit runt frames with only some scan lines present in this specific instance since torn frames in dirt 5 are almost entirely new data we've chosen to treat them as new frames as for the options in dirt 5 they work in a very counter-intuitive way to put it nicely the first is a preset option with the description quote adjusts graphical quality preset any manually tweaked options below will then apply this base quality in any other game selecting a medium preset would just set all the manually adjustable options to medium and changing any of them would deactivate the preset in dirt 5 setting the preset overrides the sub options and controls hidden settings that are independent of the manually adjustable ones so for example selecting the ultra high preset and then manually switching everything to ultra low looks completely different than selecting the ultra low preset and then switching everything to ultra low this is stupid and it shouldn't work this way instead of using settings and their names the way they're supposed to be used there is doing some sort of weird offset baseline thing and then applying the settings to that the hidden options are clearly important this is an rt capable game for example yet we have no explicit control over ray tracing there's also no way to turn off taa or control aliasing at all it's possible to turn off dynamic resolution scaling for example but the option is re-enabled every single time the game is launched which casts doubt on whether toggling it actually does anything again we're not interested in modifying config files for this testing we could do that but we're trying to work with the vanilla game because we have to work with a console that we can't modify we bring all of this up because we found it impossible to precisely match the appearance of 120fps mode on the ps5 with the pc version of dirt 5. shadow quality in particular causes problems by controlling shadow draw distance and shadow map resolution simultaneously cars appear shinier on pc no matter what with more defined reflections of individual light sources the settings we ended up matching between pc and ps5 for dirt 5 are on the screen now in the process we discovered some other interesting differences between the versions the most amusing is that the console release of dirt 5 has no spectators whatsoever in 120 fps mode maybe they're all just social distancing in the console version a more annoying difference is that without boosting the image quality setting on pc to ultra there's a blocky artifacting effect that appears on alias surfaces it looks like a heavily compressed video file but it's not our capture the game really looks like that in person and it might even look worse on youtube this may have something to do with the taa implementation but again there's no way to directly control that setting dynamic resolution scaling made hardware choices much more difficult for dirt 5 than for devil may cry there is a drs option on pc but there's no way to specify a target frame rate so there's no way to control when it kicks in we could target 720p approximately the low end of what the ps5 scaled down to in testing or target 1080p the resolution that we're trying to run we chose the second option since it gives us a firmer goal we found dirt 5 to be significantly more demanding than dmc was no matter what the resolution so he kept the 3300x installed and bumps the gpu up to a gtx 1080. unlike devil may cry dirt 5 stuck extremely close to the 120fps target with only the occasional hitch 8.33 milliseconds per frame is the time required to hit 120fps and the majority of frames that took longer than that were simply delayed not missed so the overall average was unaffected the downside is that the game is clearly rendering below 1080p in some areas in order to keep frame times consistent we use the track that appears in the opening tutorial for our benchmark and the beginning of this race in particular affected the render resolution the dynamic resolution would scale above 1080p in some locations if we allowed it to but we kept all testing at 1080 for this content piece capturing at 120 fps discards delayed frames rather than allowing them to double up resulting in a significantly higher average frame rate of 111 fps frame times on this test were either 16.67 milliseconds or 8.33 milliseconds so either hit or miss or completed frame or skipped frame this does correspond to what a user with a 120 hertz screen would see but it's not the whole story as the 240 hertz results show average frame rate with pc hardware was 109 fps in our benchmarking area with average one percent lows of 87 and 0.1 percent lows of 62. the highest individual frame times on pc were usually just under 12 milliseconds with a single outlier at 103 milliseconds and a couple more at 21. that's why we take averages to account for outliers we judged this to be close enough to the ps5 performance the ps5 did have a higher average frame rate sticking close to 120 fps as the goal but it also had more delayed frames even when ignoring the ones that caught up on the subsequent captured frame borderlands 3 is next it was the only game of the three we tested that used a different fov on pc versus console with a default of 90 on pc and 75 on the ps5 for the most part we were able to replicate the 120fps mode for graphics on pc but with one or two odd exceptions first disabling motion blur as much as possible on pc still allows some per object motion blur in cut scenes while the ps5 has no motion blur whatsoever in performance mode the way the ps5 handles texture loading is different from the pc version in some areas the ps5 textures appear much worse than pc's medium texture streaming setting but better than the low setting we settled on medium for our testing but even though they generally appear better than the console at that setting they also take longer to pop in after camera switches and cut scenes none of this should have much of an impact on frame rate so we find it odd that this setting would be anything less than ultra on ps5 it has plenty of video memory to work with and that's what matters for textures the normal maps in at least the very first area of the game appear to be inverted on the console after the opening cut scene this is clearly visible on the gravel around the player's feet shadows do not change position with the day night cycle in this area so based on the static position of the lighting the pc version is more correct here in a sense again this isn't something that should have a positive or a negative impact on performance it's just a difference between how they render things there are some clear differences in terrain geometry and cut scenes and some more subtle differences in game we tune to the settings around in-game appearance rather than the cut scenes since that's what matters more and this was the closest we could get finally shaded outlines are much heavier on console there's no direct control over this on the pc version the effect is most easily visible on plants horizons and outlines of thin objects like ropes for borderlands 3 we end up matching the pc and ps5 with these settings which you can pause if you'd like to read like dirt 5 borderlands 3 is capable of dropping resolution on console to keep the frame times low so we made the decision to pick 1080p at 120fps as a solid target on pc that's technically a higher level of performance than the console but it eliminates some guesswork running a gtx 1070 got us close to the performance we wanted but with dips in some areas so we moved to a 1070 ti or functionally a 1080 instead like dirt 5 borderlands 3 is capable of dropping resolution again in order to maintain that constant frame rate and performance in terms of average frame times is nearly identical to dirt 5. in fact averages aren't helpful here the bar graph essentially tells us that the vast majority of frames took 8.33 milliseconds or 120 fps with spikes up to 16.67 milliseconds or 60 fps capturing at 120 makes this even more apparent by evening out the faster or the slower frames this frame time plot shows behavior throughout the scene the most stressful part of our chosen benchmark scene occurs about halfway through when the player walks through a doorway frames temporarily render faster as the level is obscured by the door and the stairs behind it then they rise back up as the rest of the level comes into view and lowers performance still the dynamic resolution changes on the console prevent any serious frame time spikes a gtx 1070 didn't quite hit the performance level we wanted switching to a 1070 ti functionally again the same as the 1080 got the game running at a stable 130 fps average without any significant spikes as seen in the frame time plot this is another instance where we're giving the console the benefit of the doubt since on pc we ran out of static 1080p for every single frame and the console can be dynamic performance per dollar is sort of a screwy weird metric that people have invented because they they want something that can really quantify the dollar side of things and we don't normally give any form of hard performance per dollar number it's not hard to calculate it can be argued as useful for sure but we often look at more of the okay here's let's talk about the qualitative analysis of it and then let's try to quantify what we can quantify and hopefully you can draw your own conclusion without needing to assign a new number to it that's not to knock performance per dollar it can definitely be very useful but the point of sort of pointing that out here is that when you're talking about a console versus a pc they're so different that performance per dollar doesn't really work that well anymore and that's because the nature of them is different a pc inherently can do more things than play a game and a console it can do a few more things in play game but not as many as a pc and so to try and quantify this particular content piece with perf per dollar is maybe not fair because you're able to do other things like work on the pc that aren't accounted for in that metric so that stated if we were to try and quantify such a thing the new consoles really aren't bad in terms of performance at the price point 400 for the ps5 digital this is not that one this was about 500 but it should perform exactly the same as the 500 ps5 we're using in this testing specs are the same on paper and we're not here to trash the consoles it's what a lot of people want but consoles are genuinely very useful and viable and valuable not everybody wants to build a computer not everybody can build a computer and it's elitist to suggest that well they should learn because not i mean i don't want to learn how to service my own car and that's because i have other things i need to do so the same thing applies to pcs where not everybody wants to learn how to build one but you can still buy one off the shelf and even then consoles maintain a certain viability that still makes them useful to the audience buying them so we're not here to dunk on consoles in the world of pc gaming a 500 complete system is the absolute bottom of the barrel for the most part yes you can go cheaper but we're talking about something that'll get you some staying power for the reasonable future the idea that this generation of consoles needs to be cutting edge gaming machines uh capable of gaming at 4k 120 or even 8k is absolutely insane and unrealistic consider that the msrp of the rtx 3080 alone is 700 and that's assuming you can get one msrp for 3090 is 1500 so we've demonstrated that 8k gaming isn't practical even with a 1500 video card a top of the line gpu and it's not a 100 apples to apples comparison but it's close enough so that should give a rough idea of the hardware that sony and microsoft are contending with when they claim 8k anything or in the gaming sense 4k 120 you're going to sacrifice somewhere it's going to be graphics quality it'll be frame rate or it'll be resolution or you start throwing in things like dynamic resolution and the scaling there up so the fact that these devices are sold for 500 it is obviously unrealistic to expect that they're going to be able to compete with a high-end pc and this part of the discussion is this is directed at the console people whereas the previous part where we were talking about the consoles being viable that was directed to the pc crowd so we're just addressing both crowds here to say that yes they're both viable but realistic expectations would suggest that this thing at 500 no it can't compete with the experience you'll get out of a high-end computer and likewise a low end computer roughly price matched although in terms of the the pricing they're somewhat similar and the hardware is very dated on a pc now but the ps5 maintains a certain level of accessibility that makes it interesting or valuable and the xbox series x would be in the same bucket so we absolutely support the idea that more console games should have unlocked frame rates uh at caps above 30 fps but nobody should be under the illusion that the ps5 is a top tier gaming machine because that's just not true it's an affordable living room box it's equivalent in gaming performance to a mid to high-end gaming pc from about five years ago that's where this thing is so ray tracing wasn't the focus of this piece it's barely rolled out at all on the ps5 but the ps5 uses amd hardware that will become more uh interesting as time progresses and you can check our rx 6000 series reviews for more information on the ray tracing side of amd's hardware specifically it's not amazing so far but loading times on the playstation yes they're fast even that feature alone isn't unique though we'll be interested to see whether microsoft and sony push more heavily for game streaming as graphics become more demanding and uh the span of this console generation drags on but either way it's about a five-year-old gaming pc in the mid to high end range from that period in terms of performance on this without raytracing factored in which that older pc can't do obviously then you'd be going up to a 2060 or something so that's it for this one pretty interesting in terms of performance what you take away from this well it's a maybe a reminder of realism whether you're on the pc or the console side of things they're both valuable uh but keeping expectations in check is important so that's it for this one it's a lot of fun to compare the two and see what this equals in terms of a pc when you match the graphics and the performance levels and we were a bit surprised it was the hardware as old as it was but that's until ray tracing gets more introduction on the consoles and then we'll be back for more thank you for watching subscribe for more as always you can go to store.gamersexes.net to support us directly or patreon.com camerasnexus where we've recently posted new behind the scenes videos we'll see you all next time you

Channel: Gamers Nexus

Views: 539,488

Keywords: gamersnexus, gamers nexus, computer hardware, playstation 5, ps5, sony ps5 vs pc, sony playstation 5 review, sony playstation 5 benchmarks, playstation 5 vs pc benchmarks, playstation 5 vs $500 pc, playstation 5 graphics comparison with pc, pc vs ps5 graphics, pc vs ps5

Id: HCvE4JGJujk

Length: 34min 41sec (2081 seconds)

Published: Wed Jan 06 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/errdayimshuffln]

Not even matching a 1060? And you didnt question that, Steve? You just pushed it out as a legitimate test of graphical performance?

Normally, with results like these, you would come to realize that the results dont make sense and there is something wrong even if you think you did everything right.

[u/Goncas2]

The DMC5 test was done at 1080p on PC, the PS5 is running at 4K with image reconstruction (so probably around 1620p native). Not only that, the PS5 is running the DMC5 *Special Edition* which has better graphics settings.

Incredibly bad comparison by GN.

[u/GLynx]

PS5 is slower than 1070ti which is slower than 5600XT?

So, with the same amount of CU, RDNA2 with over 30% higher clock speed, better IPC, paired with better CPU is slower than RDNA1? It's even slower than 1060?

I'm not an expert, but something seems to be wrong there.

[u/riderer]

This is bad video from them. DF i think did DMC5 test and i am not sure they managed to make it to run in 1080p.

But most importantly for me, they didnt make a $500 PC, they started with 1060 and ended with 1070ti. thats a big price difference, and in the end i didnt understand anything from their final thoughts.

they should have gone for $500 machine with whatever cpu and gpu they can get (new or used HW - debatable), and benchmark a single configuration PC.

[u/BlazinPhoenix]

The only 4 year old hardware he's using is a 10 series card.

The rest is newer stuff that didn't exist 4 years ago. Kind of contradicts the whole "$500 PC with 4 year old hardware" claim.

No way anyone could even build a PC capable of the PS5's performance for $500 4 years ago. Hell, Ram alone was $200+

Even now with used parts it would still be a challenge.

Why not use actual 4 year old hardware for the testing as advertised instead of misleading people with a bogus headline?

EDIT: Looks like they quietly changed the title. Didn't think anyone would notice? LOL

[u/AntiqueSoulll]

So according to this video, for this whole generation I am going to buy gtx 1060 6gb ... And if I am not happy for being not on par (even better) with ps5, I am going to sue tech jesus ? Profit ?

I haven't seen a methodology/analysis this bad in a veryyy veryyy long time.

He did everything, like everything to give this one to PC. Gtx 1060 is even bad for 1080p this time of the year. How is it even ... ? Omg why am I even trying. Just unsubscribed.

[u/[deleted]]

I don't get how a 36CU RDNA 2 part is losing to a GTX 1060 in one test, or a 1070/ti in another.

Something is definitely wrong, PS5 has a 36CU RDNA 2.0 gpu clocked at 2.23ghz how is that going to lose to a 1060.

RX 5700 (rdna1) has same number of rops bandwidth and fp32 cores as the ps5 but a lower clock and on an older architecture, and that's above GTX1080 so how come the PS5 is doing this bad.

Either these are bad ports or its bad data.

Digtal Foundry are usually the experts when it comes to console benchmarks and fps analysis, according to them the PS5 roughly equalivent to a 2060S in raytracing and around a 2070S in raster (in AC Valhalla actually closer to a 2080).

Either way you wouldn't expect any rdna 2 part performance worst than a 1060, the 5500XT already beats the 1060 for the most part.

[u/vexargames]

Sorry GN this video is 100% useless it was too early to do this and not even the right test to do.

You are showing games made for the PS4 that were designed to run at lower resolution at a maximum of 60FPS in some cases 30FPS.

They were shoved out of the door quickly as "launch" titles which are almost always leftovers from the previous generation none are true next generation titles.

Running the games at 120 because some hardware label on the PS5 says it supports it is you taking marketing bullshit and then building a case on bullshit. The real expectations of this hardware is 30/60 FPS at 4k / 2k.

If they put a label that says 8k that is more marketing hype bullshit and you know that.

Those engines / games you are showing are literally recompiled versions of the PS4 code with a minimum of testing being done on the titles before they are launched.

Give at least another year before you see real next generation titles.

The 120FPS Mode is what really made the test useless, a better test would be to run the game default mode at 2k / 4k and show how you could build a PC to replicate that quality level.

Who cares about frame times? I am a game developer and even I tuned out after 5 minutes, and I actually know what you are talking about. Should be visual quality at the speed the product was designed for.

You are also showing sloppy game development work. Shit work by the team which is not fair to the PS5 hardware.

For instance that frame dip in DMC was because some asshole didn't do the job the right way not because of PC or PS5 hardware.

The title of this video should "Ps5 lies and truth" with the focus being the reality of what people should expect if you run the hardware as they, "Sony" expect it to run by 95% of the population.

I love your content keep working on it!

[u/Hittorito]

Someone awarded this, lmao.