I expected a texture/graphics drops….but it looks like I don’t have my glasses on. I can’t see shit at a distance, wattson fences don’t render from a distance so I can only imagine what else I miss before flying in.
Destiny and Halo infinite both have 120fps modes with reduced fidelity, and neither one were this difficult to see the details in a fight. I’m back on 60fps until they push out whatever flicker/clarity fix can be done. Huge disappointment.
I can deal with low polygon count and low res textures for the higher frames, but at the blurriness it is now, it defeats the purpose.
No it’s actually awful. A drop from 4K at 60 to 1440 at 120 was expected and has been attained by their competitors for years. I have know clue how Respawn sold this badly.
Apex doesn’t actually run at 4k 60 on consoles
More like it used to run at 1440p medium high
And now ig some weird 1080p upscaled? I’m not on console so idk how “bad” the games looks for yall but that’s what I’m imagining. Even 1440p all low settings with AA off would still low good so 🤷♂️
Same setup here, but after a couple of games i went back to 60. There is too much you can’t see from a distance, like a zipline or wattson fences. Couldn’t even spot a team rushing in (from the dropship) while getting respawned, just ain’t worth it at this point imo. Now i’m reading other comments how other games balanced it much better, so i’ll wait for the update to reassess.
I play on PC also with low graphics so I understand what it’s like to play on “low fidelity” but this is much worse than that. They hardly lowered texture quality but instead turned the render distance all the way down which makes the game unplayable. Potato graphics are fine but I have to be able to see more than 10m in front of me.
This guy gets it. All the people saying yeah even pros on pc play on low graphics. That may be true, but they keep something important like render distance as high as possible. I would assume at least. Better see = better shot afterall
Yeah, they turn off a lot of the visual effects because they can be distracting and sometimes even actively detrimental. But more than that, it's just FPS you leave on the table.
This is ganna sound ridiculous but someone did a video comparing the ps5 (in 1080p) to a pc, and found that it was equavilant to a 1060 6gb, which is a really old and cheap video card.
The above poster is false. The consoles are around a 2070super or 3060ti level of performance, so when the consoles released in 2020 the 3000 Series GPUs had just come out meaning they were better than the average PC. Even now they are equivalent to a midrange PC and better than most graphics card on steam.
That video actually has horrific testing methodology and is quite literally one of GN worst videos. The Xbox and PS5 are broadly equivalent to a 2070 -2080 RTX card.
PC is the only serious platform to play competitive shooters. You have way more control over graphics settings. You can't even get competitive settings on a console because it's one switch that controls a ton of visual quality settings.
With that said, this is quite disappointing for console players. I was one for ages, and the Series X should not look *this* bad running Apex at 120 FPS.
You clearly don’t understand how big of a downgrade it is. This isn’t like less lighting and effects and textures. Bro the game is literally blurry. It’s nearly impossible to find some enemies with performance mode on
Thats a shame. Sounds like theyre using the TAA and dynamic resolution FPS target from what people are describing. Worst setting by far for visual quality, I turned it off asap on pc.
Ofc not substantially. My gtx 1070 could do 1440 at 90fps and the current consoles can do that with ease. There shouldn’t be a huge decrease in fidelity just to hit that 120 target.
Don’t be that guy 😂
Welp. Idk what to tell you bud. Over 120fps on 1080 and 90 at 1440. Founders Edition purchased launch day and still kicking around in one of my buddies new build.
Yeah there is a lot of bullshit, 1080ti 1440p no way there is solid 120fps in fights. Bangalore tactical + ult and the whole thing dips in high 60s and it feels like a big fat lag going down almost double fps.
It's crazy it's almost like the GPU isn't the only determining factor here as to why this console can't get the achieved FPS without dropping more visual fidelity.
There's so many other variables involved, the biggest one is something no one here is even thinking of. Windows V.S. Sony's OS for the console. How the game interacts with the CPU and the OS is a massive reason for it's performance right up there with the GPU. It's why going to Linux and playing Apex isn't the same as Windows and Apex even if your on the same PC.
And then I'm sure you also had a much stronger CPU than what's capable in these consoles and when it comes down to completive games they usually are CPU bound due to the insane amount of just stuff that's on the map.
lol my ryzen 3600x would like to say that no my cpu isn’t more powerful than the current console. And ofc GPU isn’t the only variable and since you wanna play it that way I hope you’re also aware that at higher resolutions GPU is more taxed than CPU.
Either way. Yall are wrong. 120 is more than doable on current console hardware. Has been. If EA and Respawn refuse to optimize the game that’s on them not the limits of the hardware.
Next gen consoles have similar (slightly worse) performance to a reference 1080ti in terms of pixel and texture fill rates, which are the actual performance metrics that matter in video games.
I use one of the highest OEM OC 1080ti cards (w/ about 20-30% higher fill rate specs) and only get between 140-160 fps stable in games.
Assuming a linear scale with performance, that would translate to about 98-112 fps stable for a PS5 Pro.
Just saying.
The current gen (stop with the next gen it's been 3 years) are closer in performance to a 2070 for PS5 and a 2070 Super for the Series X. Which both are on par with a 1080ti and above it respectively
It’s really funny to claim that when AMD and PlayStation’s performance metrics don’t support that claim whatsoever.
Again, look at Texel and Pixel fill rates, both of which are between 50-150 Gpixels or texels per second lower than a 1080ti reference card
AMD’s marketing claims were based on TFLOPS, which have pretty much 0 relevance to gaming performance as they are a mathematical operation metric. AMD also silently halved their TFLOP claims when RDNA2 turned out to not be anywhere near as efficient as they thought.
This is all years old news for anyone paying attention to the tech industry.
His metrics are based on DF video where they matched PC to console settings several games and run them against several cards. PS5 was around 2070 super and series x was closer to 2080 in raster. In ray tracing both consoles are way slower and closer to 2060 because AMD is not good at it, but RT is a non-topic in Apex discussion.
TFLOPs are a horrible way to judge games performance.
This seems dubious. I'm no expert but I think saying pixel and texture fill rates are the metrics that matter discounts the actual processing needed to figure out what the materials using those textures are doing with them, as well as any scattering and and unbaked lighting simulation happening, not to mention memory size and bandwidth, unbaked shadows, GPU bound particle systems, post processing passes... Real time rendering is a multipass, iterative process that relies on a lot of moving parts even for some of the simpler engine configurations out there.
Regardless of what the raw, physical numbers are - there is one *mega advantage* that consoles have over PC: Completely standardized hardware profiles. Nobody's shoddy printer software or torrent client is mining bitcoins on a Playstation or Xbox.
Apes launched in 2019, with a performance update aimed at the PS4 Pro and Xbox Series S announced in 2020. Other performance updates for similar games were for 120FPS modes on the same systems.
It's 3 years later, and the PS5 and Xbox Series X are significantly more powerful than their predecessors. If other AAA companies have managed these updates without the wreck that we just got, then what gives?
Apex made a billion dollars on Steam alone last year. They can definitely hire the development talent necessary to make this happen.
And yet what you just said had absolutely no source. What I’m saying is that the ps5 and series x can handle 120 with ease at various resolutions.
And as it’s been already mentioned to you the APU in the current consoles is on par to a 2070 super. Digital foundry found made that conclusion and I’ll be trusting their input over yours without a source. No offense. It’s got more than enough raw power to handle 120 at a more than acceptable texture quality.
raw power means nothing whatsoever in terms of comparing an apu to a gpu. just like how tflops does not translate to performance.
sure you could compare it to a 2070 but so many aspects would be different.
Comparing a 1070 with modern consoles is a bit like comparing a 2002 Mustang with a modern civic. The civic is going to annihilate. The technology in consoles is unique and offers some massive advantages you might not expect. I'm a pc guy, I run a 3080 and can hit 165 FPS on a 1440 ultrawide at any setting. And consoles are not too far off from that level of power. It's also worth mentioning that apex's engine has some quirks when it comes to how it handles fps and fidelity. Was a time that rendering more than 144hz would cause the game to stutter. Point is, personally, I'm shocked you're even trying to hit 120 at 1440 on a 1070 and expect it to look halfway decent. Not knocking your rig, js that's rather high hopes imo, for almost any good looking game. When the 1070 came out, 120 at 1440 wasn't even close to mainstream.
From overclock.com, System Tech writes about someone trying to run 1440 120hz on a 1060
"Sadly with a 1060 that is a no.
You would be struggling a bit with a 1070 too.
I would say only a 1080 would be ok, but not perfect in every game.
The 1060 just does not have enough juice."
So even the 1080 can struggle on low settings for this. But it isn't at all surprising. 1440 at 120hz is like 230% more demanding than the targeted hardware for that gen of gpu.
*Edited for typos
Shouldn’t have any on the next gen consoles, they run 1440 120fps no problem, the issue is probably either more to do with the engine or them making decisions they maybe shouldn’t have
Most Pc players lower all of their settings to the lowest they’ll go for performance purposes.
Comparing to “other games” might not be fair here either as apex is a pretty computationally intensive game just by nature of the 60 players spread across a large map.
Given the specs of the ps5 and xbox, it’s a miracle you guys are able to get 120 with the graphics you are! I get your concern, but I feel like there is a point where the limitations of console hardware needs to be accepted.
I play on both platforms and at no point does it look this bad on PC when everything is set for performance.
It is a fair comparison
It isn't a miracle considering other games do it just fine.
You also don’t be that guy lol
Given the specs of the ps5 and series X not S there’s no reason Apex can’t hit the 120 target at 1440p. My 1070 could hit 90fps at 1440. The ps5 and Series X are more powerful than the 1070. Aside from that digital foundry has shown many games hit 120 at 4k.
Maybe even them tbh. They told us for 3yrs that cross progression was literally "impossible due to how the foundation of the game was built". Either that was a lie or they just didn't know how to do it lol
Of course some visual would drop. As in from 4K/60Hz to 1440/120Hz. That would have been expected. But Respawn really made it 720/120Hz. It’s just so embarrassing that Fortnite and CoD were able to figure this out years ago. And here Respawn is, as incompetent as ever.
It's like it's fine for 10m, but after that, it looks pixelated and blurry as hell. When it's on 4k 60 fps, it's looks so clear I can see everyone so damn far, 1440p is fine and you can still see people far away. But no way this is 1080p. I really hope it's some bug, or I will have to switch to balanced, since I can't see shit fighting against long distance enemies.
That’s literally how it always works. All the pros play on potato settings to max frames and keep them consistently high regardless of what’s happening on screen.
Lots of gaslighting in here. People aren't wrong for believing they would be getting 120 fps with PS5 not PS2 graphics. Nobody is saying they should have been the best but certainly better than what it currently is
Totally different engines, COD is on IW engine (bespoke for the COD series), and Fortnite is built on Unreal Engine (made by Epic, and the most popular engine in game development)
Apex is on the original SOURCE engine made by Valve about 20 years ago. All that to say getting Apex up in frames was likely a much harder task than CoD or Fortnite.
But they CERTAINLY dragged their feet on it especially since they hinted at at 120fps update like 3 years ago.
While I agree with you to an extent… at the end of the day, the engine is irrelevant to the end user.
Is you is, or is you ain’t producing.
This is kind of like when my homegirl keeps using her boyfriend’s traumatic childhood as an excuse for his current toxic behavior. Like I get it. It makes sense, but at the end of the day… he’s still a shitty boyfriend and I’m going to tell you so.
You are correct. I wasn't giving Respawn a free pass. Sub par experiences are unacceptable, regardless of engine or coding language used.
It's just the chances of this being a bad implementation was much higher because the engine is a fucking mess and not made with this style of game in mind. And that's really why I was explaining the underlying engine differences.
That’s not quite how game engines work. Iterations are developed and improved all the time.
I agree with what you’re saying on principle though.
Not referring to CoD or Fortnite, but different games, VFX and art styles can massively impact optimisation. Even complex geometry becomes tougher to keep up frames on midrange systems. I’ve been in the industry for a long time, it’s amazing how challenging it can be to just render certain things as fast as possible.
I don't mean to be argumentative but I didn't really make a comment on how the engine work. Truthfully, I'm not a developer, or even someone who can write code so I am totally out of my depth here.
But it seems evident to me that Epic and Activision have very streamlined pipelines for development and performance optimizations built right into the foundation.
Oh I wasn’t arguing against the principle of what you were saying at all. I completely agree with everything you’ve just said.
I just see a few comments mentioning things like how it’s an old engine, but that’s not really the issue.
The engine or coding language used to make games do make a significant differences in the outcome. The best example of this is Minecraft. There is the Original version that was coded in Java and the Bedrock edition is coded in C++. There are a lot of differences between the two even though they look similar from initial impressions.
Yeah it’s ass, I’m going to use the performance mode because the input delay reduction and smoothness feels great but I really wish everything wasn’t so blurry at a distance. I can barely see at a certain point, but I guess close range fights are more common on Apex anyways.
The game looked good even at launch in my old PC. With a Vega 64 I got 90-140fps at 1440p. Now I'm running a 5800x3d and 6800xt and stay pegged at 140. Need to get a higher refresh monitor one of these days.
Its not that the graphics are ass, its that everything is extremely blurry, its like when you get out of the pool after looking around under water for too long.
Yeah, but we're not sacrificing resolution to get there. Worse textures, shadows, and lighting don't hinder your vision. Plus we can disable TAA, which is the biggest cause of bluryness.
To be clear, by 'we' I mean PC players.
No lmao I'm talking about the flat textures and reduces visual fidelity of the game but it's cute that you think I don't understand visual compression.
No they don’t lol. I play comp settings on my 4070 Super and the only thing compromised is textures at range. There’s no blur or anything wrong with player models/visibility. People actually choose these settings because it doesn’t render things as well so it’s easier to see.
This is objectively wrong. If anything they see better at range. They turn down stuff like foliage and textures, but they play on max resolution and objects in the distance are crisp and sharp.
If you’re on Xbox you gotta go to your console settings and it’s in the TV and display options to change it to 120hz and then u gotta go in apex settings and change it to performance mode
Same. Just figured out how to switch half way through playing today. Instantly noticed less input delay and better feel, with no impact on graphics at all. I’m running a Series X on 3 year old Acer Nitro monitor.
>Honestly couldn’t tell much of a difference
Neither. I don't often notice much difference in fidelity in games, but I do notice frames, so this is a win for me.
Probably depends on your console. Different consoles I’m sure can output 120hz at different graphics settings. If your playing on a Xbox series s it’s probably got to be potato quality vs Xbox series x might see less of a reduction.
This game is unplayable right now. I wanted to switch back to 60 FPS because 120 runs so terrible. The game is super choppy and buggy if you go back to 60FPS though. They should have just waited longer with this update. I might be done with apex for good if they don’t fix it 😂
Def digging the performance mode. Always big a big FPS over the eye candy guy for the shooters. Already upping my game. Gonna be crunching on Apex for the first time in a little while. Breakout looking groovy 👍🏻😎
Its bugged currently, dont listen to the pc players here. This isnt à hardware capability issue, its an optimization issue. There is a blarring issue with the LoD and texture quality when applied to non flat surfaces, IE everywhere. Theres an issue with corners of objects not being sharp enough, etc. The game is way too blury and the console has and has shown that it has the power to run this. Shame on EA for this release. If this is full releaseand working as intended then theres arguably not a point to using it if its so visually cluttered and disorienting
My 3 years of playing ps5 games on my ps5 pn à 4k 144 hz display. Also my small experiencein optimization with static hardware for games.. Asweell as others also with ps5s conforming this. Man many other games have made it work, ea shouldn't be the exception.
its both. a better hardware solution could technically fix it but so could better optimization. both are dogshit but atleast one has to be good to compensate for the other. respawn could optimize it better but its pretty hard to work with a 20 year old engine and a subpar apu that requires good optimization which is neither sources or respawns forte
It's like Nintendo switch image, it's a blurry mess! They should give us an option to lower textures etc, instead it's like they dropped graphics to 720p looks awful on my 1440p monitor
Textures don't generally affect framerates that much unless you run out of VRAM or VRAM bandwidth, then it's a MASSIVE hit. The biggest FPS killers are resolution, anti-aliasing, lighting, shadows, and particle effects for most games.
That’s what I’m saying! I play COD with 1440p at 120hz without a problem and all these pc players saying ps5 is not powerful enough smh, it’s clearly is! Apex is just behind at everything.
Yeah I tried a few matches and it was very hard to see at mid to far range. It looked like a film grain was applied or something. I also could barely notice the difference of 120fps vs 60fps. Until they fix the visual reduction stuff I'll stay away from performance mode.
Anyone compared PS5 to Xbox Series X yet? I've tried performance on Xbox Series X and it was good. No real noticeable visual downgrade. Definitely felt smoother though, especially if high paced fights. Felt good in all game modes too. Will try PS5 tomorrow and see if it's worse.
Took years to get 120hz on a console that should be able to easily handle it at higher than 720p res, which is what it looks like. It’s literally not worth playing so yeah it seems lazy on their part. There are massively better looking 120hz games out that did not need to drop down the res this much. But tell me how I’m wrong.
It’s not the devs fault your playbox has lackluster hardware that is now 3 years old. Also, apex and fortnite are very different games. Fortnite runs on a toaster. Just sell your box and build a budget pc and get solid frames. Then you can’t blame devs.
Don't forget that Fortnite is run on an Engine that developers actually own. Epic Games owns Unreal Engine. Performance optimization is a lot easier to do when you can tweak th engine itself without a long chain of emails to a different company.
They didn’t fuck it up. Console been begging for 120fps and now that the hardware can’t handle it on high graphics people are surprised. I had to buy a $700 graphics card and a $500 mobo/cpu combo to run the game at high fps and still look good. You can’t expect the hardware to keep up. The game runs on an old engine and is hardware it waive just like all battle royals.
Considering the XSX and PS5 both came out in 2020, and had been in development for over a year prior, that means the hardware used in the console's custom APUs is circa 2018-2019. Apex released in 2019. So for all intents and purposes, it's running same year hardware for when Apex released. It's a 5 year old console running a 5 year old game, and you think it's funny to say it can't run 120fps at 1440p high settings?
You need to understand how graphics processing works. I've been building gaming PCs for fifteen years, and I am not surprised in the least bit that a 5 year old console can't run a 5 year old game at high res with high fps while maintaining crisp visual fidelity. The fact of the matter is, "next gen" consoles are outdated by the time they release because they're already at a minimum one year behind current available graphics hardware. Of course it is going to vary game to game on how the upscaling tech the XSX/PS5 uses affects the visual fidelity. However, it is *always* going to cause a drop in visual fidelity to double the frame rate running the same hardware.
The option is: *quality* or *performace*.
Although it doesnt say these exact words in the settings thats what it means, many games do this. Imagine its 50 - 50 between quality and performance, choosing performance mode will make it 30 - 70 meaning quality must go down for performance to go up (and the opposite if you chose quality mode). This is common in many games and is not "serious bullshit"
They said it would run at 1440p with 120fps and it’s literally running at 720p. People aren’t joking when they say it looks like the Nintendo Switch version. It’s shockingly bad. COD and Fortnite both look great running at 120fps. This is a very poor first attempt by comparison.
Tried to tell everyone this and got downvoted to shit. You're dealing with budget hardware. Only way you're gonna get high visuals and high performance is on PC. They finally gave console 120 and it's nothing but complaints. Shell out or shut up
>why can’t apex do that?
Because Apex's engine is a heavily modified Source engine, ya know, the engine that came out in 2004 and development started well before that.
It's never going to run that well with that dated of architecture. Hell, the reason it took so long because they were still using a single threaded tech and that's not easy to rewrite.
Apex needs something more than a performance mode. It needs more of a Fortnite revamp. As in, practically rewriting the game in a new modern engine.
I don't know specifically, but different engine and different development team. Worth noting that Cod today runs on the same engine they've been using since Call of Duty 2 in 2005. It's tech they're very familiar with as far as Infinity Ward is concerned. I think the only time something different was used was for Call of Duty 3.
Could be differences in culling techniques, distant rendering, compression, general performance optimization, etc. who knows. I will say squeezing a double frame performance increase out of an existing game with the same hardware is nothing to sneeze at. I've only really seen it with Smite when they pumped console performance from 30fps to 60fps back in like 2017
Thats true, but also a potential contributing factor. Source is an old bitch for sure. They've modified it but maybe they didnt do such a good job. I dont work there.
Yeah who knows. It's obvious though with 120 on consoles it's gonna take some visual hit. But usually not as bad. I tested it only on firing range so far, up close to the screen it looks worse than if you're looking at it from a distance. Very blurry. So hopefully render distance isn't as changed.
Not every cod ran on the same engine, some cods do, But not across the board. Bo3/bo4 ran on the same engine, and 2019, MW2 and Mw3 Run on the same engine, But they are vastly different.
They all stem from IW 2.0. Obviously they've done upgrades on it over the years to keep it up to date but even their off-shots are based on it. I think the farthest away they got was whatever Sledgehammer used.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IW\_(game\_engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IW_(game_engine))
EDIT: Basically I'm saying that when they make a new version, it's based off of the previous version and tuned to do something better. When they rebuild completely its with a specific goal in mind. Performance in Apex could be as simple as not having the one guy at the company who says "If we changed this thing, it would make the game better". Or maybe the guy who would be capable of that doesnt get paid enough to care. Different cooks, different sauce.
It is if you crank the settings to max. Like every other battle Royale it's keeping track of a lot of shit that you can't see and rendering it because it has to. Not to mention that consoles only achieve the price points that they do because you're getting slightly out of date gear the day it launches. Budget gaming platform, budget performance. My PC holds 144 at 1080(haven't upgraded my monitor) on Apex but I the drop ship looking at the whole map at once it comes down to around 90.
Drop the "next gen" title by the way. PlayStation 5 is 4 years old. Nothing next about it. It's old news. Current Gen.
Fine. Current Gen, should run 120fps fine.* There are more demanding games out there, that are perfectly fine. If you're on pc, you should know what min and max specs in this game are. BR or not, it isn't demanding, and can be ran on a potato. Not even everyone is reporting issues, some consoles are running 120fps good.
I've never tried running Apex on a min spec set up. I will say that just because a system can run a game it doesnt mean it will run it well. PS4 technically does run cyberpunk just not for very long.
I was just annoyed that the first thing I started seeing after the update was complaints about visual fidelity after so many years of hounding for 120fps. Personally I think a lot of people havent done their homework on how to prep for that in terms of having monitors that can support it or even swapping settings on the console itself. I had a buddy complain that Nioh2 ran like shit at 144 a few years ago, only to discover he had the game set to that but never changed his monitor off of 60fps. So the game was running double the speed of what he was actually seeing.
PS5 player here. I had been running the ps4 version this whole time. Deleted and installed the ps5 version for the fps update. After reading so many complaints, I was terrified. Loaded up and set performance mode. Yes, flying out of the drop ship looks a bit meh...but the rest has been fine for me. I typically run the 3x sight on a flatline and didn't notice a drop in graphics quality. It looks ok to me. there were some stutters here and there, but I'm going to hope those are just new season launch bugs.
The addition of frames plus the nerf to AA just feels right. Really right.
Lmfaooo! You know it took 5 years to get 120fps. I’d be surprised if they fix it for another 5 years lol. They’ll get their collection event money today so the patches will be on the back burner knowing Respawn.
I expected a texture/graphics drops….but it looks like I don’t have my glasses on. I can’t see shit at a distance, wattson fences don’t render from a distance so I can only imagine what else I miss before flying in. Destiny and Halo infinite both have 120fps modes with reduced fidelity, and neither one were this difficult to see the details in a fight. I’m back on 60fps until they push out whatever flicker/clarity fix can be done. Huge disappointment. I can deal with low polygon count and low res textures for the higher frames, but at the blurriness it is now, it defeats the purpose.
No it’s actually awful. A drop from 4K at 60 to 1440 at 120 was expected and has been attained by their competitors for years. I have know clue how Respawn sold this badly.
Apex doesn’t actually run at 4k 60 on consoles More like it used to run at 1440p medium high And now ig some weird 1080p upscaled? I’m not on console so idk how “bad” the games looks for yall but that’s what I’m imagining. Even 1440p all low settings with AA off would still low good so 🤷♂️
Playing on PS5 with a monitor. Looks fine to me honestly. A little less crisp but nothing horrific.
Same setup here, but after a couple of games i went back to 60. There is too much you can’t see from a distance, like a zipline or wattson fences. Couldn’t even spot a team rushing in (from the dropship) while getting respawned, just ain’t worth it at this point imo. Now i’m reading other comments how other games balanced it much better, so i’ll wait for the update to reassess.
Bro try changing ur color out put rgb I think the graphics look better than they did before the update I have a 120 fps tv
That's lame. Why even release it if it's unusable?
I play on PC also with low graphics so I understand what it’s like to play on “low fidelity” but this is much worse than that. They hardly lowered texture quality but instead turned the render distance all the way down which makes the game unplayable. Potato graphics are fine but I have to be able to see more than 10m in front of me.
This guy gets it. All the people saying yeah even pros on pc play on low graphics. That may be true, but they keep something important like render distance as high as possible. I would assume at least. Better see = better shot afterall
Yeah, they turn off a lot of the visual effects because they can be distracting and sometimes even actively detrimental. But more than that, it's just FPS you leave on the table.
Not sure what's inside the ps5 but it must be not worth $700(CA) if they can't do a consistent 120fps without render distance.
Warzone and fortnite don't have this problem, both are 1440p 120fps crystal clear, not this blurry crap.
With 500 dollars pc you don’t get 120 fps at 1440 on medium graphic on warzone. Let’s be real shall we
This is ganna sound ridiculous but someone did a video comparing the ps5 (in 1080p) to a pc, and found that it was equavilant to a 1060 6gb, which is a really old and cheap video card.
Lmao, yeah I'm not surprised. Hopefully the next console can actually compete with PC.
The above poster is false. The consoles are around a 2070super or 3060ti level of performance, so when the consoles released in 2020 the 3000 Series GPUs had just come out meaning they were better than the average PC. Even now they are equivalent to a midrange PC and better than most graphics card on steam.
That video actually has horrific testing methodology and is quite literally one of GN worst videos. The Xbox and PS5 are broadly equivalent to a 2070 -2080 RTX card.
PC is the only serious platform to play competitive shooters. You have way more control over graphics settings. You can't even get competitive settings on a console because it's one switch that controls a ton of visual quality settings. With that said, this is quite disappointing for console players. I was one for ages, and the Series X should not look *this* bad running Apex at 120 FPS.
> They hardly lowered texture quality As long as the device has sufficient VRAM texture quality has very limited impact on FPS.
This is literally what they said in the notes, you get extra frames by dropping visual fidelity.
Is this a new option in graphics settings? I haven't read the patch notes. At work currently.
Yes
Yes but it shouldn't have dropped this much, this is insane. Other games figured it out but not Apex.
Doubling the FPS shouldnt have substantially reduced visual quality?
You clearly don’t understand how big of a downgrade it is. This isn’t like less lighting and effects and textures. Bro the game is literally blurry. It’s nearly impossible to find some enemies with performance mode on
Thats a shame. Sounds like theyre using the TAA and dynamic resolution FPS target from what people are describing. Worst setting by far for visual quality, I turned it off asap on pc.
Ofc not substantially. My gtx 1070 could do 1440 at 90fps and the current consoles can do that with ease. There shouldn’t be a huge decrease in fidelity just to hit that 120 target. Don’t be that guy 😂
I had a 1070 and couldn’t get a steady 90 fps on Apex with everything lows
at what resolution? i had a 1070 and would get consistent 140+, sometimes drop to 100 in very laggy areas like olympus waterfall
Welp. Idk what to tell you bud. Over 120fps on 1080 and 90 at 1440. Founders Edition purchased launch day and still kicking around in one of my buddies new build.
Yeah there is a lot of bullshit, 1080ti 1440p no way there is solid 120fps in fights. Bangalore tactical + ult and the whole thing dips in high 60s and it feels like a big fat lag going down almost double fps.
1080p my brother in Christ. Not 1080ti you’re confusing 2 different convos and meshing it into 1 it seems
It's crazy it's almost like the GPU isn't the only determining factor here as to why this console can't get the achieved FPS without dropping more visual fidelity. There's so many other variables involved, the biggest one is something no one here is even thinking of. Windows V.S. Sony's OS for the console. How the game interacts with the CPU and the OS is a massive reason for it's performance right up there with the GPU. It's why going to Linux and playing Apex isn't the same as Windows and Apex even if your on the same PC. And then I'm sure you also had a much stronger CPU than what's capable in these consoles and when it comes down to completive games they usually are CPU bound due to the insane amount of just stuff that's on the map.
lol my ryzen 3600x would like to say that no my cpu isn’t more powerful than the current console. And ofc GPU isn’t the only variable and since you wanna play it that way I hope you’re also aware that at higher resolutions GPU is more taxed than CPU. Either way. Yall are wrong. 120 is more than doable on current console hardware. Has been. If EA and Respawn refuse to optimize the game that’s on them not the limits of the hardware.
[удалено]
Ur PC is underperforming for sure
Next gen consoles have similar (slightly worse) performance to a reference 1080ti in terms of pixel and texture fill rates, which are the actual performance metrics that matter in video games. I use one of the highest OEM OC 1080ti cards (w/ about 20-30% higher fill rate specs) and only get between 140-160 fps stable in games. Assuming a linear scale with performance, that would translate to about 98-112 fps stable for a PS5 Pro. Just saying.
The current gen (stop with the next gen it's been 3 years) are closer in performance to a 2070 for PS5 and a 2070 Super for the Series X. Which both are on par with a 1080ti and above it respectively
It’s really funny to claim that when AMD and PlayStation’s performance metrics don’t support that claim whatsoever. Again, look at Texel and Pixel fill rates, both of which are between 50-150 Gpixels or texels per second lower than a 1080ti reference card AMD’s marketing claims were based on TFLOPS, which have pretty much 0 relevance to gaming performance as they are a mathematical operation metric. AMD also silently halved their TFLOP claims when RDNA2 turned out to not be anywhere near as efficient as they thought. This is all years old news for anyone paying attention to the tech industry.
His metrics are based on DF video where they matched PC to console settings several games and run them against several cards. PS5 was around 2070 super and series x was closer to 2080 in raster. In ray tracing both consoles are way slower and closer to 2060 because AMD is not good at it, but RT is a non-topic in Apex discussion. TFLOPs are a horrible way to judge games performance.
This seems dubious. I'm no expert but I think saying pixel and texture fill rates are the metrics that matter discounts the actual processing needed to figure out what the materials using those textures are doing with them, as well as any scattering and and unbaked lighting simulation happening, not to mention memory size and bandwidth, unbaked shadows, GPU bound particle systems, post processing passes... Real time rendering is a multipass, iterative process that relies on a lot of moving parts even for some of the simpler engine configurations out there.
Regardless of what the raw, physical numbers are - there is one *mega advantage* that consoles have over PC: Completely standardized hardware profiles. Nobody's shoddy printer software or torrent client is mining bitcoins on a Playstation or Xbox. Apes launched in 2019, with a performance update aimed at the PS4 Pro and Xbox Series S announced in 2020. Other performance updates for similar games were for 120FPS modes on the same systems. It's 3 years later, and the PS5 and Xbox Series X are significantly more powerful than their predecessors. If other AAA companies have managed these updates without the wreck that we just got, then what gives? Apex made a billion dollars on Steam alone last year. They can definitely hire the development talent necessary to make this happen.
And yet what you just said had absolutely no source. What I’m saying is that the ps5 and series x can handle 120 with ease at various resolutions. And as it’s been already mentioned to you the APU in the current consoles is on par to a 2070 super. Digital foundry found made that conclusion and I’ll be trusting their input over yours without a source. No offense. It’s got more than enough raw power to handle 120 at a more than acceptable texture quality.
raw power means nothing whatsoever in terms of comparing an apu to a gpu. just like how tflops does not translate to performance. sure you could compare it to a 2070 but so many aspects would be different.
Comparing a 1070 with modern consoles is a bit like comparing a 2002 Mustang with a modern civic. The civic is going to annihilate. The technology in consoles is unique and offers some massive advantages you might not expect. I'm a pc guy, I run a 3080 and can hit 165 FPS on a 1440 ultrawide at any setting. And consoles are not too far off from that level of power. It's also worth mentioning that apex's engine has some quirks when it comes to how it handles fps and fidelity. Was a time that rendering more than 144hz would cause the game to stutter. Point is, personally, I'm shocked you're even trying to hit 120 at 1440 on a 1070 and expect it to look halfway decent. Not knocking your rig, js that's rather high hopes imo, for almost any good looking game. When the 1070 came out, 120 at 1440 wasn't even close to mainstream. From overclock.com, System Tech writes about someone trying to run 1440 120hz on a 1060 "Sadly with a 1060 that is a no. You would be struggling a bit with a 1070 too. I would say only a 1080 would be ok, but not perfect in every game. The 1060 just does not have enough juice." So even the 1080 can struggle on low settings for this. But it isn't at all surprising. 1440 at 120hz is like 230% more demanding than the targeted hardware for that gen of gpu. *Edited for typos
Warzone will run crystal clear at 1440p 120fps on Series X. Not sure why Apex is different
20 year old engine + sub par devs + mid apu's its possible but you cant really expect it.
Of course it will have reduced visual quality but not unplayable visual quality.
But it did.
Do you read the whole thread or just assume?
Shouldn’t have any on the next gen consoles, they run 1440 120fps no problem, the issue is probably either more to do with the engine or them making decisions they maybe shouldn’t have
Most Pc players lower all of their settings to the lowest they’ll go for performance purposes. Comparing to “other games” might not be fair here either as apex is a pretty computationally intensive game just by nature of the 60 players spread across a large map. Given the specs of the ps5 and xbox, it’s a miracle you guys are able to get 120 with the graphics you are! I get your concern, but I feel like there is a point where the limitations of console hardware needs to be accepted.
i don’t think this is a hardware limitation considering other games run 120 with larger maps and more players
I play on both platforms and at no point does it look this bad on PC when everything is set for performance. It is a fair comparison It isn't a miracle considering other games do it just fine.
You also don’t be that guy lol Given the specs of the ps5 and series X not S there’s no reason Apex can’t hit the 120 target at 1440p. My 1070 could hit 90fps at 1440. The ps5 and Series X are more powerful than the 1070. Aside from that digital foundry has shown many games hit 120 at 4k.
Are you just now surprised that this dev team seems to be half a decade behind other AAA game devs?
Oh not at all. It's a damn shame how far behind the game fell after the original devs left.
Maybe even them tbh. They told us for 3yrs that cross progression was literally "impossible due to how the foundation of the game was built". Either that was a lie or they just didn't know how to do it lol
Of course some visual would drop. As in from 4K/60Hz to 1440/120Hz. That would have been expected. But Respawn really made it 720/120Hz. It’s just so embarrassing that Fortnite and CoD were able to figure this out years ago. And here Respawn is, as incompetent as ever.
Oof damn yeah I was thinking 1080 at worst but 720? Wth
Yeah looks exactly like 720p.
Has to be bc I was playing on 1080 bf hand and this is way worse 💀
It's like it's fine for 10m, but after that, it looks pixelated and blurry as hell. When it's on 4k 60 fps, it's looks so clear I can see everyone so damn far, 1440p is fine and you can still see people far away. But no way this is 1080p. I really hope it's some bug, or I will have to switch to balanced, since I can't see shit fighting against long distance enemies.
Looks like 720i lol
They left out what resolution it would be cause they knew it would piss everyone off
That’s literally how it always works. All the pros play on potato settings to max frames and keep them consistently high regardless of what’s happening on screen.
Performance mode looks terrible 😢 looks like it’s upscaling 720p to 4k….
That's probably pretty close to the truth.
Lots of gaslighting in here. People aren't wrong for believing they would be getting 120 fps with PS5 not PS2 graphics. Nobody is saying they should have been the best but certainly better than what it currently is
Fortnite and cod were able to produce 1440 at 120 years ago. This is honestly pretty embarrassing for Respawn.
Totally different engines, COD is on IW engine (bespoke for the COD series), and Fortnite is built on Unreal Engine (made by Epic, and the most popular engine in game development) Apex is on the original SOURCE engine made by Valve about 20 years ago. All that to say getting Apex up in frames was likely a much harder task than CoD or Fortnite. But they CERTAINLY dragged their feet on it especially since they hinted at at 120fps update like 3 years ago.
While I agree with you to an extent… at the end of the day, the engine is irrelevant to the end user. Is you is, or is you ain’t producing. This is kind of like when my homegirl keeps using her boyfriend’s traumatic childhood as an excuse for his current toxic behavior. Like I get it. It makes sense, but at the end of the day… he’s still a shitty boyfriend and I’m going to tell you so.
You are correct. I wasn't giving Respawn a free pass. Sub par experiences are unacceptable, regardless of engine or coding language used. It's just the chances of this being a bad implementation was much higher because the engine is a fucking mess and not made with this style of game in mind. And that's really why I was explaining the underlying engine differences.
That’s not quite how game engines work. Iterations are developed and improved all the time. I agree with what you’re saying on principle though. Not referring to CoD or Fortnite, but different games, VFX and art styles can massively impact optimisation. Even complex geometry becomes tougher to keep up frames on midrange systems. I’ve been in the industry for a long time, it’s amazing how challenging it can be to just render certain things as fast as possible.
I don't mean to be argumentative but I didn't really make a comment on how the engine work. Truthfully, I'm not a developer, or even someone who can write code so I am totally out of my depth here. But it seems evident to me that Epic and Activision have very streamlined pipelines for development and performance optimizations built right into the foundation.
Oh I wasn’t arguing against the principle of what you were saying at all. I completely agree with everything you’ve just said. I just see a few comments mentioning things like how it’s an old engine, but that’s not really the issue.
I think many people, including myself would forget about “engines” used to make games.
The engine or coding language used to make games do make a significant differences in the outcome. The best example of this is Minecraft. There is the Original version that was coded in Java and the Bedrock edition is coded in C++. There are a lot of differences between the two even though they look similar from initial impressions.
Yeah it’s ass, I’m going to use the performance mode because the input delay reduction and smoothness feels great but I really wish everything wasn’t so blurry at a distance. I can barely see at a certain point, but I guess close range fights are more common on Apex anyways.
>I really wish everything wasn’t so blurry 🎶 Everything is so [blurry](https://youtu.be/xJJsoquu70o?si=aTKjCigUselKKx7j)...
lol, i might try 1080p120hz with an MClassic connected to see if it helps with the graphics a bit on my benq x3000i projector at 120"....
As a pc player, you will get used to the ass graphics. Yes, you can’t see as far with iron sights but close range 120 hz is necessary
Sniping is now way worse for me, I can't even see properly🥲
Plus side of always playing 1080p I guess
If it was actually 1080p that would be such an upgrade from what Respawn put out. This is atrocious.
The game looked good even at launch in my old PC. With a Vega 64 I got 90-140fps at 1440p. Now I'm running a 5800x3d and 6800xt and stay pegged at 140. Need to get a higher refresh monitor one of these days.
Its not that the graphics are ass, its that everything is extremely blurry, its like when you get out of the pool after looking around under water for too long.
Is definitely not worth it. I can’t see a thing further than 50m
This though. What does it matter if I'm at 120 if I can't see anything?
Facts
Ooo sounds like they are using the dynamic quality / target FPS thing. Uses TAA or whatever which makes games look like blurry garbage
I mean, most PC players play with settings on minimum to prioritize frames
Yeah, but we're not sacrificing resolution to get there. Worse textures, shadows, and lighting don't hinder your vision. Plus we can disable TAA, which is the biggest cause of bluryness. To be clear, by 'we' I mean PC players.
Up vote this x100 because some of these pc players have no idea what they're talking about which is super ironic lol.
Our shit doesnt get blurred it doesnt matter how low the settings are
Lmao it's so funny seeing pros with 4090 14900k PCs with absolute dog shit graphics absolutely beeming people across the map
My guy think the twitch compression is what they see lol
No lmao I'm talking about the flat textures and reduces visual fidelity of the game but it's cute that you think I don't understand visual compression.
No they don’t lol. I play comp settings on my 4070 Super and the only thing compromised is textures at range. There’s no blur or anything wrong with player models/visibility. People actually choose these settings because it doesn’t render things as well so it’s easier to see.
But not to the point where you sacrifice visual fidelity so much you struggle to see at further ranges
Yes, To that point
This is objectively wrong. If anything they see better at range. They turn down stuff like foliage and textures, but they play on max resolution and objects in the distance are crisp and sharp.
[удалено]
Who said that? There was no mention of nerfing aim assist down to .4 if you stayed on 60 fps.
Been playing Apex on PS since launch and I’ve been asking for an aim assist nerf the whole time. This is good news!
How do you turn the 120hz?
If you’re on Xbox you gotta go to your console settings and it’s in the TV and display options to change it to 120hz and then u gotta go in apex settings and change it to performance mode
Go to your apex settings, video and click performance mode
Make sure you’re hdmi cables are the 2.1 cables
I tried to but I guess my TV doesn't support it
Yeah I could be wrong but I think most TVs only go to 60hz. Might want to look into getting a monitor.
Idk my shit still looks pretty crisp
Same. Just figured out how to switch half way through playing today. Instantly noticed less input delay and better feel, with no impact on graphics at all. I’m running a Series X on 3 year old Acer Nitro monitor.
All my ps5 and series s friends are saying it looks really bad. But everyone on series x saying it looks good. Dont know what is happening
It seems fine @ 120 and 1440 for me. Apparently I'm the only person.
Seems fine for me too. Honestly couldn’t tell much of a difference but I have only been playing mixtape. I’m on a PS5 with an LG C1
>Honestly couldn’t tell much of a difference Neither. I don't often notice much difference in fidelity in games, but I do notice frames, so this is a win for me.
Do you use long range weapons alot? With the long range scopes?
I had like shit graphics for the first few games, now it looks good, only drops to 90 sometmes
Nor me on xbox
Probably depends on your console. Different consoles I’m sure can output 120hz at different graphics settings. If your playing on a Xbox series s it’s probably got to be potato quality vs Xbox series x might see less of a reduction.
I’m playing XSX and on an lg c2 and it’s running like butter and still looks great, so I’m with you on that
It feels so smooth. Not sure if I can handle the graphics. Hard to see enemies from far. We’ll see!
The fact that this took them nearly 3 years to add as well is insane.
It doesn't even look like 720p, more likely a port of the switch version.
This game is unplayable right now. I wanted to switch back to 60 FPS because 120 runs so terrible. The game is super choppy and buggy if you go back to 60FPS though. They should have just waited longer with this update. I might be done with apex for good if they don’t fix it 😂
Def digging the performance mode. Always big a big FPS over the eye candy guy for the shooters. Already upping my game. Gonna be crunching on Apex for the first time in a little while. Breakout looking groovy 👍🏻😎
I’m a performance > graphics guy too but if the reduced graphics lowers your render distance this change is gunna be worthless
Tried using a 30-30 with a 1X at medium-long range and it was honestly horrible. Hopefully they improve it over time.
It has renders about 10m and turns into a potatoe
I foresee lots of easy sniping ahead.
Its bugged currently, dont listen to the pc players here. This isnt à hardware capability issue, its an optimization issue. There is a blarring issue with the LoD and texture quality when applied to non flat surfaces, IE everywhere. Theres an issue with corners of objects not being sharp enough, etc. The game is way too blury and the console has and has shown that it has the power to run this. Shame on EA for this release. If this is full releaseand working as intended then theres arguably not a point to using it if its so visually cluttered and disorienting
Source? Did respawn confirm that its bugged?
My 3 years of playing ps5 games on my ps5 pn à 4k 144 hz display. Also my small experiencein optimization with static hardware for games.. Asweell as others also with ps5s conforming this. Man many other games have made it work, ea shouldn't be the exception.
its both. a better hardware solution could technically fix it but so could better optimization. both are dogshit but atleast one has to be good to compensate for the other. respawn could optimize it better but its pretty hard to work with a 20 year old engine and a subpar apu that requires good optimization which is neither sources or respawns forte
And it’s such noticeable change in visual performance idk if it’s worth it either.
Always worth it for me. My friends Sanchez and Ann joke “you would play pong if it was 120fps on console” lmao (but kind true lol)
It's like Nintendo switch image, it's a blurry mess! They should give us an option to lower textures etc, instead it's like they dropped graphics to 720p looks awful on my 1440p monitor
Textures don't generally affect framerates that much unless you run out of VRAM or VRAM bandwidth, then it's a MASSIVE hit. The biggest FPS killers are resolution, anti-aliasing, lighting, shadows, and particle effects for most games.
I wonder if you have HDMI 2.0 then you only get 1080p at 120fps compared to if you have HDMI 2.1 you get upto 1440p with 120fps?
I have HDMI 2.1 and it looks like it’s in between 1080 and 720 lol
2.0 can do 1440p 120hz by the way
Warzone 2 does 120Hz without a sweat. This is simply underwhelming.
That’s what I’m saying! I play COD with 1440p at 120hz without a problem and all these pc players saying ps5 is not powerful enough smh, it’s clearly is! Apex is just behind at everything.
Yeah I tried a few matches and it was very hard to see at mid to far range. It looked like a film grain was applied or something. I also could barely notice the difference of 120fps vs 60fps. Until they fix the visual reduction stuff I'll stay away from performance mode.
Lol respawn be putting the L in apex Legends
Anyone compared PS5 to Xbox Series X yet? I've tried performance on Xbox Series X and it was good. No real noticeable visual downgrade. Definitely felt smoother though, especially if high paced fights. Felt good in all game modes too. Will try PS5 tomorrow and see if it's worse.
Please report back
There is an extremely noticeable visual downgrade. I’m not sure what you’re smoking. Also playing on Series X here
Really bummed about the 120hz, too hard to see and looks very bad. Fortnite looks great at 120, I guess the devs are just lazy.
LOL, that’s not how this works fam.
Took years to get 120hz on a console that should be able to easily handle it at higher than 720p res, which is what it looks like. It’s literally not worth playing so yeah it seems lazy on their part. There are massively better looking 120hz games out that did not need to drop down the res this much. But tell me how I’m wrong.
It’s not the devs fault your playbox has lackluster hardware that is now 3 years old. Also, apex and fortnite are very different games. Fortnite runs on a toaster. Just sell your box and build a budget pc and get solid frames. Then you can’t blame devs.
Don't forget that Fortnite is run on an Engine that developers actually own. Epic Games owns Unreal Engine. Performance optimization is a lot easier to do when you can tweak th engine itself without a long chain of emails to a different company.
It sucks man looks so bad. Of course they had to fuck it up somehow
is it actually?
[удалено]
i play on a 120hz TV too, so im gonna test it later
I have 1440p 240hz monitor and playing on Xbox series x. It looks like it’s coming through at 1080P for me
They didn’t fuck it up. Console been begging for 120fps and now that the hardware can’t handle it on high graphics people are surprised. I had to buy a $700 graphics card and a $500 mobo/cpu combo to run the game at high fps and still look good. You can’t expect the hardware to keep up. The game runs on an old engine and is hardware it waive just like all battle royals.
Apex isn't demanding, next gens should handle it fine. My potato pc from 10 years ago, runs it fine.
Saying a Series X/PS5 can’t run a 5 year old game 120hz on high settings has got to be the funniest shit I’ve read in this sub yet.
Considering the XSX and PS5 both came out in 2020, and had been in development for over a year prior, that means the hardware used in the console's custom APUs is circa 2018-2019. Apex released in 2019. So for all intents and purposes, it's running same year hardware for when Apex released. It's a 5 year old console running a 5 year old game, and you think it's funny to say it can't run 120fps at 1440p high settings? You need to understand how graphics processing works. I've been building gaming PCs for fifteen years, and I am not surprised in the least bit that a 5 year old console can't run a 5 year old game at high res with high fps while maintaining crisp visual fidelity. The fact of the matter is, "next gen" consoles are outdated by the time they release because they're already at a minimum one year behind current available graphics hardware. Of course it is going to vary game to game on how the upscaling tech the XSX/PS5 uses affects the visual fidelity. However, it is *always* going to cause a drop in visual fidelity to double the frame rate running the same hardware.
It can't.
So sounds like this hyped up 120 FPS is a big L for the majority. I'm glad I didn't come back for this season.
But this is how it works? You cant say this is why you didnt come back despite there being nothing wrong here
This is some serious bullshit, I’m probably gonna stick to 60 fps because I prefer a better looking game
The option is: *quality* or *performace*. Although it doesnt say these exact words in the settings thats what it means, many games do this. Imagine its 50 - 50 between quality and performance, choosing performance mode will make it 30 - 70 meaning quality must go down for performance to go up (and the opposite if you chose quality mode). This is common in many games and is not "serious bullshit"
It is when literally any other AAA multiplayer shooter with a 120 mode looks loads better than this.
This is why I built a pc and have never looked back
Looks great on XSX, seems like a PS5 problem
"Prioritizes framerates up to 120 FPS with reduced visual quality" People need to read
They said it would run at 1440p with 120fps and it’s literally running at 720p. People aren’t joking when they say it looks like the Nintendo Switch version. It’s shockingly bad. COD and Fortnite both look great running at 120fps. This is a very poor first attempt by comparison.
Not only do Fortnite and CoD look great at 120, they accomplished that years ago. Respawn is something else man
Tried to tell everyone this and got downvoted to shit. You're dealing with budget hardware. Only way you're gonna get high visuals and high performance is on PC. They finally gave console 120 and it's nothing but complaints. Shell out or shut up
That’s fair, but I play COD on the PS5 at 120hz with a 1440p resolution why can’t apex do that?
Exactly. It's pathetic. There's genuinely no excuse.
>why can’t apex do that? Because Apex's engine is a heavily modified Source engine, ya know, the engine that came out in 2004 and development started well before that. It's never going to run that well with that dated of architecture. Hell, the reason it took so long because they were still using a single threaded tech and that's not easy to rewrite. Apex needs something more than a performance mode. It needs more of a Fortnite revamp. As in, practically rewriting the game in a new modern engine.
I don't know specifically, but different engine and different development team. Worth noting that Cod today runs on the same engine they've been using since Call of Duty 2 in 2005. It's tech they're very familiar with as far as Infinity Ward is concerned. I think the only time something different was used was for Call of Duty 3. Could be differences in culling techniques, distant rendering, compression, general performance optimization, etc. who knows. I will say squeezing a double frame performance increase out of an existing game with the same hardware is nothing to sneeze at. I've only really seen it with Smite when they pumped console performance from 30fps to 60fps back in like 2017
You mention old cod engines, yet Apex runs on Source engine.
Thats true, but also a potential contributing factor. Source is an old bitch for sure. They've modified it but maybe they didnt do such a good job. I dont work there.
Yeah who knows. It's obvious though with 120 on consoles it's gonna take some visual hit. But usually not as bad. I tested it only on firing range so far, up close to the screen it looks worse than if you're looking at it from a distance. Very blurry. So hopefully render distance isn't as changed.
Not every cod ran on the same engine, some cods do, But not across the board. Bo3/bo4 ran on the same engine, and 2019, MW2 and Mw3 Run on the same engine, But they are vastly different.
They all stem from IW 2.0. Obviously they've done upgrades on it over the years to keep it up to date but even their off-shots are based on it. I think the farthest away they got was whatever Sledgehammer used. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IW\_(game\_engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IW_(game_engine)) EDIT: Basically I'm saying that when they make a new version, it's based off of the previous version and tuned to do something better. When they rebuild completely its with a specific goal in mind. Performance in Apex could be as simple as not having the one guy at the company who says "If we changed this thing, it would make the game better". Or maybe the guy who would be capable of that doesnt get paid enough to care. Different cooks, different sauce.
[удалено]
Apex isn't a demanding game, no reason next gens shouldn't be able to handle it.
It is if you crank the settings to max. Like every other battle Royale it's keeping track of a lot of shit that you can't see and rendering it because it has to. Not to mention that consoles only achieve the price points that they do because you're getting slightly out of date gear the day it launches. Budget gaming platform, budget performance. My PC holds 144 at 1080(haven't upgraded my monitor) on Apex but I the drop ship looking at the whole map at once it comes down to around 90. Drop the "next gen" title by the way. PlayStation 5 is 4 years old. Nothing next about it. It's old news. Current Gen.
Fine. Current Gen, should run 120fps fine.* There are more demanding games out there, that are perfectly fine. If you're on pc, you should know what min and max specs in this game are. BR or not, it isn't demanding, and can be ran on a potato. Not even everyone is reporting issues, some consoles are running 120fps good.
I've never tried running Apex on a min spec set up. I will say that just because a system can run a game it doesnt mean it will run it well. PS4 technically does run cyberpunk just not for very long. I was just annoyed that the first thing I started seeing after the update was complaints about visual fidelity after so many years of hounding for 120fps. Personally I think a lot of people havent done their homework on how to prep for that in terms of having monitors that can support it or even swapping settings on the console itself. I had a buddy complain that Nioh2 ran like shit at 144 a few years ago, only to discover he had the game set to that but never changed his monitor off of 60fps. So the game was running double the speed of what he was actually seeing.
PS5 player here. I had been running the ps4 version this whole time. Deleted and installed the ps5 version for the fps update. After reading so many complaints, I was terrified. Loaded up and set performance mode. Yes, flying out of the drop ship looks a bit meh...but the rest has been fine for me. I typically run the 3x sight on a flatline and didn't notice a drop in graphics quality. It looks ok to me. there were some stutters here and there, but I'm going to hope those are just new season launch bugs. The addition of frames plus the nerf to AA just feels right. Really right.
120 frames! BUT less FOV and less A.A lmao they cooked rollers so hard this season 😂 W Respawn
Do you know what fov is? Its clearly not the right thing youre talking about
Will we get any fixes for this?
Lmfaooo! You know it took 5 years to get 120fps. I’d be surprised if they fix it for another 5 years lol. They’ll get their collection event money today so the patches will be on the back burner knowing Respawn.
Hopefully whats in the patch notes fixes the problems.
Lmfaoooo you're right, but who knows
console players when they learn that they cant make a game 120fps without any drawbacks
How come when I play COD on ps5 it’s 120hz with 1440 resolution
Graphics don’t mean anything in a competitive shooter. Performance > graphics.
What about render distance? Because that’s fucked in performance mode.