Assassin’s Creed Valhara-What PC hardware do you need to match the PS5 visuals? • .net

With the advent of next-generation consoles, the hardware requirements of PC software inevitably increase as graphics quality and complexity increase. The baseline was reset with the advent of the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5, and I wanted to get an overview of the types of PC graphics kits needed to rival or exceed console hardware. To do this, we decomposed the visual composition of Assassin’s Creed Valhara and matched the PS5 and PC in terms of quality settings-a firm grasp of the process-optimized settings and the value of all presets. Is measured and the optimum setting is suggested for PC users.

First of all, it’s worth pointing out that very different games can have very different results. After evaluating Watch Dogs Legion, we came to the conclusion that the Xbox Series X could be comparable to a PC running the Nvidia RTX 2060 Super. This is mainly due to the annoying demands of ray tracing, where GeForce hardware is a clear advantage. At Assassin’s Creed Valhara, you can see something very different. First of all, the game doesn’t seem to work very well with the Nvidia kit, and RT isn’t used, disabling the important benefits of GeForce. AMD, on the other hand, seems to work much better. In our calculations, the Radeon RX 5700XT should be very close to the PS5 experience.

Note that some of this comparison is theoretical, as there are no similar settings between the console and the PC. For example, dynamic resolution scaling systems are very different. The PS5 spends most of its time measuring pixel counts between 1440p and 1728p, with many areas and cutscenes locked to 1440p. PC is different. Curiously, the antialiasing system is also a DRS system, with adaptive settings that provide 85% to 100% resolution on each axis, depending on the load. Simply put, the DRS window on your PC will be low. So, in order to understand the relative performance of the PC and console, I used the game area below 60fps on the PlayStation 5 and rendered it at a resolution of 1440p.

This content is hosted on an external platform and will only be displayed if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view them.

The visual breakdown of AC Valhalla and the performance cost on the PC version overlap with the output of PlayStation 5.

So what are the equivalent settings for the PC used on the PlayStation 5? You can see my process in the video above, but basically it starts with the shadow of the super high setting, very high for the details of the world, and super high for the expensive volume cloud setting of Assassin’s Creed. , Very high, or high (less identical if all can be seen more or compared directly). On the other hand, perhaps of course, with that huge memory allocation in mind, the console uses the highest quality textures and the water settings are closest to the PC’s highest values.

So far, it’s very good, but this is where things get a little trickier. It turns out that the clutter option actually increases the leaf density, the PlayStation 5 presentation actually exceeds the very high maximum on the PC, and the vegetation in the test scene becomes even denser. I think this is a developer oversight as this is one of the few settings on a PC that has no very high equivalent. The performance impact of this setting is very small, the difference between very high and low is only 4%, but the world looks different. This will be explained later. Lack of scalability for the PC version of the game.

There are other contradictions. First, all cloth physics in the game is performed at the PlayStation 5 sub-native frame rate. It is less than 30fps. The best PC settings give you a full native frame rate, and you’ll only get similar results if you adjust your environment’s advanced settings to a medium level. So basically, there isn’t enough granularity in the settings to make the console and PC match exactly. Also, the quality of the fire rendering, which appears to be running at full resolution on the PC, doesn’t seem to match exactly, but on the PS5 it’s much lower. But with that said, there are still some interesting comparisons and conclusions we can draw.

After all, it’s clear that this is a very demanding game on the PC, but what was most noticeable to me was the lack of scalability-some settings, such as depth of field, don’t really do anything. Although it looks like, the dynamic resolution scaling options are arbitrarily limited and impractical. There are some other annoying issues. Even at the highest settings, the terrain is visibly deformed in front of you, as the quality of tessellation cannot be scaled up. This happens on all platforms. The second conclusion is that the PlayStation 5 works with most PC settings at maximum, so relatively low resolutions make sense.

Choosing a specific stress point on the PlayStation 5 (below 60 fps and reaching a minimum resolution of 1440p) allows you to run a PC version fixed at 1440p with the same settings possible. And here you can actually see the split between Nvidia and AMD. First of all, the RTX 2060 Super is 20% slower than the PlayStation 5, and the RTX 2070 Super drops to 10%. Based on testing on the 2080 Ti, it seems that a 2080 Super or RTX 3060 Ti will be required to match or exceed the PlayStation 5 output. However, based on testing on the Navi-based RX 5700, I think the 5700XT will be close to console throughput. This assumes a very high cloud preset. Dropping down to a higher value will improve performance.

The scalability of the game is disappointing when you look at the overall wins brought about by the optimized settings. Dropping into a preset selected entirely from ultra-high only improved performance by 14% on the RTX 2060 Super running at 1440p. In fact, the biggest improvement can be seen by turning on the adaptive resolution setting. This improves the performance of the optimized settings by about 28% across the Ultra. But again, the DRS solution lacks it. Resolution shifts are not flexible enough to maintain 60 fps in many scenarios and their effectiveness is limited.

Anyway, Assassin’s Creed Valhara is probably not the best way to compare consoles to PCs, and it’s an interesting data point, especially considering the performance differences between AMD and Nvidia GPUs. Indeed, despite the relatively high price, console users are making a big profit-when the PS5 and Xbox One were launched in 2013, the £ 100 graphics for at least some time. The card can be comparable to the console experience. With fast forward seven years later, we are considering the much more expensive PC parts needed to reach console equivalence.


Back to top button