With the arrival of the next console generation, its inevitable that the hardware requirements for PC software application will rise as graphical quality and complexity increases. The standard is reset with the arrival of Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5, and we wanted to get a summary of what sort of PC graphics set is needed to match or perhaps surpass console hardware. To do this, we broke down the visual cosmetics of Assassins Creed Valhalla, matching PS5 and PC in terms of quality settings – getting an excellent grip on optimised settings while doing so, where we determine the bang for the dollar of every preset and suggest the most optimal settings for PC users.
First of all, its worth pointing out that we might well see very various outcomes for really various games. In examining Watch Dogs Legion, I came to the conclusion that Xbox Series X could be matched by a PC running an Nvidia RTX 2060 Super – mostly owing to the onerous demands of ray tracing, an area where GeForce hardware has a clear benefit. With Assassins Creed Valhalla, we see something really different. Of all, the game doesnt seem to run that well on Nvidia package, and theres no RT in usage, nullifying a key GeForce advantage. AMD seems to fare considerably much better. By our reckoning a Radeon RX 5700XT ought to get really near to the PS5 experience.
Its worth pointing out that a few of this contrast work is theoretical as there are no like-for-like settings in between consoles and PC. For example, the dynamic resolution scaling system is really different. PS5 spends many of its time in between 1440p and 1728p in our pixel count measurements, with lots of locations and cutscenes locked to 1440p. PC is various – bizarrely perhaps, the anti-aliasing system is likewise the DRS system, with the adaptive setting providing between 85 per cent to 100 percent of resolution on each axis, according to load. Put merely, PC has a lower DRS window. So to get an idea of relative performance between PC and consoles, I utilized an area of the game that drops below 60fps on PlayStation 5, and does so while rendering at 1440p resolution.
This content is hosted on an external platform, which will just show it if you accept targeting cookies. Please make it possible for cookies to view.
Handle cookie settings
To do this, we broke down the visual makeup of Assassins Creed Valhalla, matching PS5 and PC in terms of quality settings – getting an excellent grip on optimised settings in the process, where we measure the bang for the buck of every predetermined and suggest the most ideal settings for PC users.
Its worth pointing out that some of this comparison work is theoretical as there are no like-for-like settings in between consoles and PC. Maybe unsurprisingly bearing in mind their prodigious memory allotments, the consoles use max quality textures, while the water setting is closest to PCs high.
On highest PC settings, youll get full native frame-rate, and you only get something similar if change the ecological information setting down to medium. Basically, we do not have the granularity in the settings to get a specific console to PC match across the board.
What are the PC equivalent settings used on PlayStation 5? Possibly unsurprisingly bearing in mind their prodigious memory allotments, the consoles use max quality textures, while the water setting is closest to PCs high.
The clutter option in fact increases the density of foliage, to the point where I found that PlayStation 5s presentation actually exceeds PCs really high optimum, with even denser greenery in my test scene. This setting has a very low effect on performance – with simply a four per cent difference in between really high and low although they look worlds apart, which is something well address later: the lack of scalability in the PC variation of the video game.
There are other inconsistencies too. For one, all the cloth physics in the video game perform at a sub-native frame-rate on PlayStation 5: 30fps or perhaps lower. On greatest PC settings, youll get complete native frame-rate, and you just get something comparable if adjust the environmental detail setting down to medium. So essentially, we lack the granularity in the settings to get a specific console to PC match throughout the board. Likewise there doesnt appear to be a specific match in the quality of fire making which appears to run at complete resolution on PC, but much lower on PS5. However with that said, there are still some interesting comparisons and conclusions we can draw.
In the end, its clear that this is a really requiring game on PC but what stood out most to me was the lack of scalability – some settings like depth of field dont appear to really do anything, while the dynamic resolution scaling alternative is arbitrarily limited and does not have energy. There are some other inconveniences too: tessellation quality cant be scaled up, so even at the highest setting, surface visibly deforms right in front of you, something that occurs on all platforms. The second conclusion is that the reasonably low resolution on PlayStation 5 makes sense since it is operating with many of the PC settings maxed out.
Selecting a specific stress point on PlayStation 5 – which drops underneath 60fps and hits the minimum 1440p resolution – I might run the PC variation repaired at 1440p with as close to comparable settings as possible. Based on tests with a 2080 Ti, it looks like a 2080 Super or RTX 3060 Ti would be required to surpass or match PlayStation 5s output. Based on my tests with a Navi-based RX 5700, I d anticipate a 5700 XT to get within striking range of the consoles throughput.
Looking at the total wins delivered by my optimised settings, the scalability of the video game is disappointing. Actually, the most significant gain can be seen by turning on the adaptive resolution setting which increases optimised settings performance over ultra to around 28 per cent.
All told, perhaps Assassins Creed Valhalla isnt the finest method to compare consoles and PC, especially remembering the variation in efficiency in between AMD and Nvidia GPUs, but its certainly an interesting information point. It certainly stresses that in spite of the reasonably high costs, console users are getting a lot – when PS5 and Xbox One launched back in 2013, a ₤ 100 graphics card could match the console experience, for a while a minimum of. Quick forward seven years on, and youre looking at a lot more pricey PC parts needed to reach console parity – let alone surpass it.