The Mighty Xbox One X already has to resort to low settings

Come on man. Even if one game performed better then a 1070 does not mean the GPU in the system is as powerful. Even though in this game I am not seeing it. A lot of that comes down to the programmers and how they optimize for a game. That does not mean the GPU in the X is a match or more powerful then a 1070. Common sense should kick in here and tell you that. You are really setting up yourself for failure if you believe the X's GPU is as powerful as a 1070 just saying.

But this whole thread is about this one game...

@Juub1990 said:

@GioVela2010 said:

It’s clearly SMAA just like the SLI Benchmark

Notice the Matching results for single cards.

And I’m glad we’re now coming to an agreement that it’s about equal to a GTX 1070 FE, which is a $440 dollar GPU. (If comparing average frames to minimum lol)

You must be really proud that other stock GTX 1070’s can average 1-2 frames better @ 4K and equal settings.

game set and fucking match

And let's do some math. 2.5% performance drop results in 35.49 of frame rate average. Lowest 3% at 29.8fps lol. So the 1070 is at worst 30fps on Ultra. Nothing on Low.

18% higher on average despite using higher settings. If you dropped the settings to Xbox One X level, it'd be averaging in the 40's and dropping to the mid 30's.

Over and out.

So based on techpowerups gameplay benchmark, and PCGamers assessment that the latest drivers increase performance by 5%.

we can come to the conclusion that X1X minimim frame rates is at worst equal to a GTX 1070 FE minimum frame rates at similar settings.

thanks for agreeing with me, I appreciate your efforts

“For these tests, I’m using the Nvidia 391.35 and AMD 18.3.4 drivers. Both sets of drivers are Game Ready for Far Cry 5, with limited testing showing about a five percent improvement on Nvidia hardware compared to previous drivers.”

**** it, I am out. Just let me warn you one last time the 1070 is a better GPU then what is in the X. I still love my X, but this is just common damn sense. It is more of a match for the 580 and 1060 and for a $500 box I am okay with that.

? Dumbasses like GioVela2010 are the reason people laugh at lems.

In the face of overwhelming evidence he's wrong and the clown is still arguing.

Cows and Sheep can be insufferable fanboys but you'll never see them arguing at this level of stupidity. DF has completely proven him wrong, updated benchmarks have destroyed him yet the clown is still arguing ferociously. This is why having no games on your system sucks, you only have hardware to cling on to. The lack of games has this clown using hardware as his only crutch for owning the system, and he doesn't want to believe that it's not as powerful as his deluded mind believes.

@Xabiss said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@Xabiss said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@Xabiss said:

Seriously stop with this Xbox One X having the power of a 1070. It is a $500 box that has a graphics card that mimics the 580. It will never and I mean never touch the power of a 1070 and guess what that is okay. It was never attended to compete against a $500 video card. No way in hell Microsoft could of sold a box that could match the power of the 1070 with everything else they included and keep the price at $500. What you do get is a decent spec machine that can't be built in the PC space for the same price. They built some nice hardware and we should just all enjoy it for what it is.

But everything I just wrote proves it does.. in fact OP is now admiring as much...

Come on man. Even if one game performed better then a 1070 does not mean the GPU in the system is as powerful. Even though in this game I am not seeing it. A lot of that comes down to the programmers and how they optimize for a game. That does not mean the GPU in the X is a match or more powerful then a 1070. Common sense should kick in here and tell you that. You are really setting up yourself for failure if you believe the X's GPU is as powerful as a 1070 just saying.

But this whole thread is about this one game...

**** it, I am out. Just let me warn you one last time the 1070 is a better GPU then what is in the X. I still love my X, but this is just common damn sense. It is more of a match for the 580 and 1060 and for a $500 box I am okay with that.

it’ll always be closer to a 1070 FE than a 1060.

but we’ll save that discussion for future blockbuster games that prove me right

Considering the track record so far at DF for XB1X, including FC5, I wouldn't count on it.

The odds are not in your favor.

DF suggested 2880x1620 resolution to lock 30 FPS with a GTX 1060.

So what the **** are you talking about when you say “Including FC5” ?

@hrt_rulz01: Damn I Know. the Xbox Jealousy is ridiculous Sony Got Em Weaning off the Pipe . Xbox does it all

Negative, chief.

Ive been calling this out since day 1 and lems clearly dont know crap about how hardware works. The xbox one x can output at 4k sure but the vast majority of games will either be 30fps or run on low settings to be able to run at 4k. 4k is too early to be viable on console, i would rather play at 1440p at high settings and 60fps. If u want real glorious 4k, u have to pony up the cash and get PC

Is there an option to just play it at 1080p 60fps on Pro/X?

Lmao These two low settings (Terrain and Volumetric Fog) are the most overblown and exaggerated low settings in the existence of video games.

Here’s an explanation in what they do and the performance impact from two different websites.

Terrain: Sets the size (quality) of the textures used for the terrain, with a negligible impact on performance. Performance improves by just one percent going from high to low. Even at 4k ultra, Far Cry 5 only uses about 4GB of VRAM.

Volumetric Fog: Adjusts the quality of volumetric fog, including things like light shafts. Dropping to low only yields a three percent increase, however, and it's difficult to tell what has changed in the screenshots.

Terrain

Probably one of the weaker graphics settings in Far Cry 5, Terrain impacts the graphical detail of general terrain features. Without side by side comparisons it's actually difficult to tell, but the higher the resolution you're playing at, the more important this setting becomes.

Performance Impact - 1/5

Priority - 1/5

Volumetric Fog

Everyone loves a bit of Volumetric Fog. This setting provides the voluminous sun beams that pour through the gaps in trees. In truth though, this setting actually looks great on Low, so if you're trying to squeeze a few more frames out this is a worth sacrifice.

Performance Impact - 2/5

Priority - 2/5

^ ^ ? Fanboy meltdown.

@andrewgohigh: Who's alt are you?

Gonna say no, because of online parity with the standard XB1/PS4 @ 30fps

No, that is reserved for the real version of the game on PC. Ultrawide Ultra 80+ fps.

@Juub1990: Still the most powerful console...

LMAO Xbone X got destroyed in this thread. What a joke.

Not making any money selling them means money is being lost on each sale

Looks great to me. Babybackballbagnitpicking

I run the game on Ultra @ 2560x1080 and I somethings just look and think the game isn't that pretty.... I mean it has some scenes that look great and others that are just Meh

Sound slike a typical Ubisoft game. My problem with their games is a lack of consistency with their graphics.

lost sleep over what's possible the TINIEST upgrade for most peoples displays at the distance they sit that is possible? compared to what is sacrified?

Nobody is losing sleep over 4k... nobody with any common sense anyway.

Lmao the difference in image quality between 4K OLED HDR and every 1440p display in existence is massive AF

@GioVela2010: So is the burn in. :D

@Juub1990: You can feel the pain through the comments of each fanboy that thought the X1X was out performing the GTX 1080 and 1070 at 4K. lol

kinda feeling that way. i thought it looked gorgeous in the videos i had seen but honestly in my eyes on ultra even at 75fps it just looks.....weird? foliage looks like crap for some reason

Yet you don't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. You have very selective eyes.

@quadknight: lol. If terrain is only a 1% performance hit, why does the X1X have to drop it to “low”?

The damage control in this thread is ridiculous.

Every setting the X1 has to drop suddenly isn’t a big deal. 60 fps doesn’t matter either.

BUT DAT HDR AND ATMOS BRUH! TOTAL GAME CHANGERZ.

The guy is a total nutcase lol. He's claiming it's 1% performance hit and then can't answer why the settings are on low on the PotatoBoneX.

I'm simply repeating what pcgamer.com has found in testing.

X1X Settings save about 6-7% in performance vs Ultra Preset for PC

• Terrain: Low
• Volumetric Fog: Low
• Texture Filtering: High or Ultra
• Water: High
• Geometry & Vegetation: High
• Shadows: High
• Environment: High
• AA: TAA
• Motion Blur: On
• PC uses MSAA with Ultra Preset not TAA
• PC has Motion Blur off with Ultra Preset

TAA and Motion Blur is more taxing than MSAA and No Motion Blur by 3.5%

The 3.5% performance hit from using TAA and Motion Blur, instead of MSAA and No Motion Blur cancels out the fact that Terrain and Volumetric Fog on Low saved X1X 4% in performance.

https://www.pcgamer.com/far-cry-5-settings-and-benchmarks/

Texture Filtering: Adjusts the quality of texture filters. Most modern GPUs easily handle anisotropic filtering at maximum quality with little impact to performance, with a two percent increase in performance by dropping to minimum.

Shadows: This mostly affects the quality of soft shadows, and the distance for the detailed shadows. Even at low, you still get decent looking shadows, which explains the relatively small six percent increase in performance.

Geometry and Vegetation: Adjusts the complexity of world geometry and vegetation, including increased LOD (level of detail) and more branches in trees at higher settings. Again, the impact on performance and visuals is relatively small, with a four percent increase using the low setting.

Environment: This adjusts the graphical details of the environment, which is a very nebulous description. However, looking at the screenshots, this appears to adjust reflections and ambient occlusion, making it the single most demanding setting you can adjust. You can boost performance by 13 percent by using the low setting, but water in particular looks much worse.

Water: This is supposed to affect the quality of the water, but the environment setting has a far greater impact. Dropping this to low does improve performance by nine percent, though, so if you're looking for good ways to boost framerates without impacting visuals, this is a good one.

Terrain: Sets the size (quality) of the textures used for the terrain, with a negligible impact on performance. Performance improves by just one percent going from high to low. Even at 4k ultra, Far Cry 5 only uses about 4GB of VRAM.

Volumetric Fog: Adjusts the quality of volumetric fog, including things like light shafts. Dropping to low only yields a three percent increase, however, and it's difficult to tell what has changed in the screenshots.

@quadknight said:

@appariti0n said:

@quadknight: lol. If terrain is only a 1% performance hit, why does the X1X have to drop it to “low”?

The damage control in this thread is ridiculous.

Every setting the X1 has to drop suddenly isn’t a big deal. 60 fps doesn’t matter either.

BUT DAT HDR AND ATMOS BRUH! TOTAL GAME CHANGERZ.

The guy is a total nutcase lol. He's claiming it's 1% performance hit and then can't answer why the settings are on low on the PotatoBoneX.

That’s what it takes for X1X to never ever drop a single frame.

unlike a 1070 at Ultra

@quadknight: And he keeps repeating the same shit while blatantly ignoring it’s been debunked. How come this clown hasn’t been banned but compararively tame posters like dynamitecop were?

You know, I wonder what the PS4 Pro's settings are. Since the X is such a joke.

That PS4Pro and Xbox One X doesn't do 4K very good shouldn't be unknown to anyone by now.

I feel a bit sorry for you guys who own these consoles. You got fooled by the "OMG 4K is here!!" marketing, just to get something subpar. But yeah, 4K with some serious shortcomings is still 4K, so I guess they didn't lie. LOL

You do know that not everyone bought one for 4k right?

Your butthurtness is showing...

1. That's because you're not stupid.
2. Yup. But you care more about games than making money from games.

If they see an opportunity to do consoles that almost can handle 4K, and market it as 4K consoles in a time where 4K just got popular to talk about, they will do it.

Don't do anything good when you can get away with shit. < The motto of too many gaming companies.

Then they bought one just to get a bit better fps? Yeah, that's almost worse.. You shouldn't need better fps in console games. Devs needs to learn to make games that work for the hardware they're making it for.

Butthurt for what exactly? Does butthurt even mean anything anymore or is it just something to throw at people who don't like what you do?

I actually feel sorry for you because you're so upset by an inanimate object, your life must be so empty.

It's a huge mystery to me as well. NyaDC had his moments but even he knew when he was wrong and when to back out of an argument. This guy is either a really massive troll or a total nutcase.

Upset? Again, by what? Is it fun to come up with things from your own ass? If anyone is upset, it's you, who had to reply to me and defend your favorite toy.

Compromised 4K, the Mighty XboneX

OLED yes, HDR - yes . 4k? no......

@Litchie: I just came to point it out that that's exactly what PC Gamers do

Indeed, good times man and that Giovela fella been savagely brutal. I can't hardly watch the painful meltdowns he's causing anymore. lolol :P