data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1e80/c1e80303b214a9a4c539c3cd490caf2d22cd42e8" alt="PS5 Performance Mode"
During the PS5 Pro reveal video, the ever-informative Mark Cerny dropped a rather interesting detail with regards to PS5 graphics options. One of Sony's main selling points for the Pro is that players will no longer be forced to choose between visual fidelity and performance modes, with the upgraded console's additional power allowing for the best of both worlds — at least in games that have been labelled 'PS5 Pro Enhanced'.
But when it comes to those aforementioned modes, we've always wondered just how popular each graphical option actually is. Fortunately, Cerny's got the data: "When asked to decide on a mode, [PS5] players are choosing performance about 3/4s of the time."
We probably would have bet on performance modes being the more common choice. After all, you're typically playing games rather than watching them — and so it makes sense that most players would opt for smoother frame rates and more responsive controls. Still, it's nice to have confirmation.
"Removing that decision [between fidelity and performance], or at least narrowing that divide is one of the key targets for PS5 Pro," Cerny continues. "We want to give players the graphics that the game creators aspire to, at the high frame rates that players typically prefer."
So, do you prefer performance over fidelity? Or does it largely depend on the game? Prove Cerny correct in the comments section below.
Which graphics option do you typically use in PS5 games? (799 votes)
- Fidelity
- Performance
[source News: PS5 Pro Announced, Costs $700 and Out in November]
Comments 64
I also play in performance mode if available. However I really dont like this approach on commercializing the PS5Pro. Prior to the announcement of the PS5 there were talks about how this console will bring 4k 60fps gaming (since the PS4Pro brought 4k 30fps). Now, a few years into the generation, we are being told that the PS5Pro might close the gap between performance and fidelity (still not 100% confirmation of 4k 60fps). I dont really like the wording used during the presentation yesterday...
Definitely performance mode every time.
If a game is only 30fps I don’t buy it, I know but 30fps is so blurry when panning around it looks horrible now a days compared to a good 60fps.
Also I have a Sony TV and I’m sure it does a better job when upscaling to its 4K screen and makes up a little for the lack of native 4K or drop in resolution when in 60fps mode.
That’s why I wonder actually what the PS5 Pro is going to give me.
Am I the only one who feels anything faster than 30fps as artificial??? I played FF16 on performance for about a minute, but had to switch back to fidelity because I was feeling nausea...
The fact that there were no such modes (as far as I'm aware) during the PS3/XB360 generation show the regression the industry has been making.
Devs are no longer required to squeeze the absolute best they can out of hardware and find the optimal level. Just throw a few sliders in and then ask Sony for new hardware.
The fact that Cerny said that a huge driving force behind PS5 Pro was developers asking for more power, backs this up.
Saw this during the presentation, then they immediately talk about all the ways they are enhancing graphics with the Pro. Feels like no lessons were learned here.
Some games do “fidelity” mode really well. Eg, I played FF7 rebirth in fidelity mode and had no issues with it. I always try both, but I’d say I probably use performance mode more than fidelity.
I choose graphics mode 100% of the time on my first playthroughs. I have an LG OLED so I like to experience it with that. Plus, I can’t really notice the difference from 30 to 60 FPS too much. It’s not game breaking for me at least. I’m sure if it was pointed out, I’d be able to tell right away. But yeah, graphics mode all the way.
And Stellar Blade still looks really really good in performance mode.
Almost alway quality mode for me. I guess I’m an outlier
@Nightcrawler71 Yeah same rebirth does it really well. Burt once I beat the game twice I went straight to performance for less latency on those vr missions.
I think this is a good use case for the Pro, it's just that price point.
I know some don't care but if some amount of the 75% do, then its a good upgrade for them
@AndyKazama Balanced mode looks really good and it's a locked 60.
I play mostly in performance, unless performance is broken.
Case in point, BG3 and Spidey 2 at launch.
Playing black myth wukong on performance mode. And while fsr sucks and it's fps isn't the best. It feels better than "33fps" mode
Not a deal breaker for me but I always choose performance mode. If I've been playing a 60fps game and then go to play a 30fps game I definitely notice a difference but once you get used to it it's fine, for me at least. RDR2 is my favourite game of all time probably and that is 30fps and I'm fine with that.
@jrt87 I can never understand why people choose fidelity when it doesn't just play worse but it also looks worse due to the choppiness.
@MS7000 Even worse the graphical improvements were only noticeable when they specifically highlighted them. It wasn't improvements you would even notice while playing the games.
40fps best of both worlds more fidelity and half the frame times
I have heard that before, when the ps4 pro launched, then when the ps5 launched, and yet we are still having to choose and probably will forever
Up until July 23 I didn't have a 4k TV so it was no brainer to do performance mode but would have regardless as feel games look great at 1080p and upscaled and smooth performance makes it play better and gameplay beats graphics for me
Always performance. I'd rather sacrifice a few bells and whistles in the graphic department in favor of a locked 60 fps.
When given the option, performance mode all day every day.
Unless I have no choice or wayyyy in the future, I won't play on a 4k screen any time soon, 1080p is absolutely sufficient for video-games. Performance will naturally be my all-time choice.
@djlard I’m the same way, but society says we are in the wrong
This greatly depends on the display. On a relatively new large oled display 30fps is simply a slideshow
I was certain I was in the minority when picking performance mode. This is a nice surprise.
Never chose performance so far.
If we got fidelity with better graphics I might have considered that price
I really can’t feel the difference between 30fps and 60fps, yet I usually play in performance mode as I hate the motion blur that devs often implement at 30fps to make things look smoother.
When i'm playing a game trying to kill 20 zombies and not die, I don't care what the light looks like on the floor in the distance. I'll always pick performance over a few little strands of grass in a field.
I only buy games these days that are confirmed as almost locked 60fps or higher (unless i can confirm its playable for me via a demo).
What i found most intriguing was this sounded like a very forceful 'nudge' to developers to stop with the 30fps modes, particularly when you consider he didnt have to mention how many choose what mode for his sales pitch of best of both...
I always prefer Performance most of the time but I got to say, I tried playing FFVII Rebirth in graphics mode and the difference between performance and graphics mode is day and night. Didn't realize how gorgeous the game looks despite being in 30fps
You’d think Xbox have similar data, which is why it baffles me that so many 1st-party Xbox games aren’t supporting 60fps (at least initially): e.g. Redfall, Starfield, Hellblade 2, and now Avowed.
Depends on the game for me. For example I play the Witcher 3 on fidelity mode. 30 fps for that game was no problem for me on last generation and I can still play it at 30 fps. I just enjoyed how beautiful the world is for that game on fidelity. For shooters I have played in performance mode for both consoles.
@__jamiie This is just completely wrong. The reason there are graphics vs performance modes now isn't because devs are "lazy". The truth is that it is the opposite. The PS3/360 era may be the first HD era of gaming but the details on the models themselves were still very much as simple as they were in the PS2/Xbox era. Now devs are individually designing every strand of hair on characters' heads that have realistic physics instead of just doing a singular LEGO style hair piece. The ground and walls are modeled to have actual texture instead of simply having 2D texture images slapped onto them. Same with the clothes characters wear. Devs are choosing to utilize the increased processing power to put an absurd amount of detail into their games and that is why every game can't be 4K 60fps unless it is highly stylized such as Borderlands 3.
Also do you think every game in the PS3/360 era ran at 1080P 60fps? That most certainly wasn't the case. That was a rarity. If a game was advertised as 1080P it most definitely ran at 30fps and if it ran at 60fps it had a 720P resolution. This has always been a thing with gaming. At least now games are giving players the option to pick what they want prioritized instead of going "just deal with whatever we choose for you"
Yes 60 fps is more important than better graphics, resolutions, or RT for ps5, since the graphics are good enough. Ps4 graphics (ghost of tsushima, tlou 2, etc) with 60 fps is good enough for me.
@PloverNutter So do you think that the PS5 has been pushed to its limits already by Sony?
Yup my console is set to performance mode.
Performance majority of the time.
I don't exactly play games to stop and appreciate the scenery, so things like ray tracing and foliage density seem superfluous - the game runs perfectly fine without them, so I don't need them.
GT7 is a perfect example of this - when I'm trying to chase 1st place, am I going to be amazed that I can see the rough shape and colour of my car reflected in the paint work of every car I pass? No! I'm going to be focusing on making sure I'm controlling the car and taking the fastest line possible! Even if the detail is there, I'm highly unlikely to pay attention to it.
The fact this is a thing and yet the industry is still like it is with games taking longer and longer to make and costing more and more is just hilarious. The AAA part of this industry is so disconnected from their customer base.
So, all this effort to create and promote a machine that has these incredible enhanced graphical options that 3 out of every 4 people don't really give a monkeys about...
I choose fidelity 100% of the time. Never have an issue. Not sure where this framerate snobbery came from. Popped up from nowhere.
@elvisfan1 I believe it's a case of getting used to a certain frame rate. Why else was I completely fine with 30fps for years and years but now 30fps hurts my eyes, but if that's all the game offers I can eventually get used to it again.
Where is the option for 40 FPS balanced mode?
Am I the only person who didn’t know you could actually chose between the two? Frankly the PlayStation UI is a weird thing to navigate.
@MrGawain It's usually in the game settings when it's available.
@jrt87 For me it depends on the game with turn-based games it's not something I really care about but I have to agree I rather have 60 then a higher resolution because the games look nice to me already.
Yeah... i don't want the choice removed.
@djlard Same when I tried to play Jedi Survivor in performance mode. I'm glad we have the options though!
Release a pro AT LAUNCH with a regular version from now on.
I used to always be a Resolution guy. But when I got a PS4 Pro and played Horizon: Zero Dawn for the first time in Performance Mode it completely changed the way I play games.
@RBRTMNZ There is no choppiness at 30fps. I play on quality every game no matter what, and it looks totally normal. You need to try to let your eyes adjust when you go from 60 to 30. It will probably go away. You are receiving twice as many images and your brain is used to 60.
My tv is 1080P so i wonder if either really matters? But i chose Performance Mode every time. Im happy with 1080P and wish character models and trees and such looked better. Not more high res as 4K just look more alien and weird. Give me more rain and snow in games. To this day SNES Donkey Kong Country is the best looking game during the snow part.
with native ps5 games I always choose performance - it also has influence on the ps5 games I buy. If no 60fps option, I don´t buy. 30fps acceptable for me only with ps4 games like Bloodborne. I can´t understand those who saying they don´t see any difference - this is impossible to not see it in action/FPS games at least. It took my eyes some time to adapt when I came back from Elden Ring to Bloodborne, it´s so noticable...however, I don´t mind to buy ps5 pro. Hope my ps5 will still offer performance option also in the future, expect that at least with 1st party titles
@RedRiot193 if it had a ps5 pro ultra HD res mode at 60 that'd be sweet
jrt87 wrote:
LOL. To be honest I don't mind 30fps in SOME games, it really depends on the genre. But anything fast paced, or anything where the camera is moving in many directions constantly I prefer more frames.
But I find 40fps a pretty good balance in many games both on PS5 and Steam Deck. It just feels MUCH smoother then 30fps. ymmv
That all said there are FAR more important things. If the game is good enough, look at most Nintendo games, then I will get used to 30fps pretty quickly. I'd rather play Tears of the Kingdom or Xenoblade Chronicles 3, or even Bloodborne at an unstable sub-30fps than not play them at all, and I will have a great time doing it.
dardel wrote:
To be fair Sony never said this, this choice is always up to DEVELOPERS. If they decided not to add so many extra layers of detail and targeted 60fps from the start this would be entirely possible on base PS5. But they are always trying to make better and better looking worlds and seem to be happy with 30fps even if, as Sony have said, three quarters choose performance mode.
I always try both. Sometimes even in a walking sim, fidelity is not worth the low frame rate. Sometimes in an action game, fidelity’s 30 frames are very smooth.
@30fps60fps I played 90 hour of Tears of the Kingdom and never stopped seeing the choppiness so no it is not something I get use to.
There was a study earlier this year showing that some humans have less ability perceive high frame rates. If you’re not noticing you probably just don’t have as good of visual perception as other people.
@__jamiie Honestly I do and I think the reason people think Sony hasn't pushed the limits of the PS5 yet is because they are still thinking with an old mindset. For most of video game history game console generations have been defined by their graphical upgrades. 8 Bit to 16 Bit. 2D to 3D. SD to HD. With each iteration though the graphical differences between generations gets smaller and smaller, reaching a point of diminishing returns. There is a reason that 8K video has been abandoned by pretty much all types of media since the difference between it and 4K is so small that the general consumer does not care.
If you look at the PS4/XB1 era the differences between games released at launch and the games still releasing for them today do not look much different in terms of graphics, while there was a much larger difference between the looks of games released at the beginning and the end of the PS3/360 era. Now developers are focusing on such minor things to make games realistic, such as characters' pupils actively reacting to changes in light, that most gamers don't notice but claim that devs aren't doing anything new. We also need to look past just the graphics resolution and polygon counts to realize how much of a step up this generation is. Loading times are pretty much non existent for most games these days, especially first party games. That is a huge deal that most people simply ignore for some reason. Then there are the physics engines making games react in a way that they would in the real world. Ray tracing alone is insane in that games can now simulate realistic light particles in real time. As someone who studied optics for years and had to use advanced engineering computers to run simulation of light particles, having it be done well in a console while also running an entire game should be blowing people's minds but instead they have gotten so numb to things that all they care about is pixel count.
@OldGamer999 agree fully with the upscaling on Sony tvs... especially when they have dedicated setups when you plug the playstation in. Nothing more that i really need, and I've played most of the "big games" (Spiderman, FF7R, FF16, GoWR, even astro bot) this way in performance, and I'm happy with it.
If performance mode can give me a solid 60 fps, great. If quality mode is a locked in at a stable 30 fps and performance mode fluctuates between 30 and 60, I’d rather just stay with quality. I’m looking at you, Space Marine 2.
@RBRTMNZ Yeah possible.
Performance every time if there's a need for the choice.
On the rare occasions I can notice any difference with fidelity mode, the marginal impact wears off after a few minutes as you get used to it. A high frame rate always feels good.
Also, maybe it's my TV, but fidelity modes always look a bit blurry in motion.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...