Studio Wildcard has just released ARK: Survival Ascended on Xbox Series X in Early Access. The game has been available for the PC for a while, and it’s one of the most demanding PC games to date. So, how does the Xbox Series X version fare against the PC on Epic Settings? Time to find out.
In this video, Axrora compared numerous scenes from the game. The PC version was set to Epic Settings, and both the Xbox Series X and PC versions were running at 4K resolution. It’s not clear though whether the PC is using Native 4K or not.
The PC version of ARK: Survival Ascended looks much better than the Xbox Series X version. From shadows and LOD to small objects on the terrain, everything looks better on PC. Sometimes, the Xbox Series X version seems like an old-gen version. The only scene where I liked the Xbox Series X version more was the lava scene. I don’t know why, but on PC, Lumen seems to be broken in that area. Seriously, look at it. The Xbox Series X version has some awesome global illumination effects in that scene. On the other hand, on PC, the environment doesn’t seem affected by the lava. Ironically, there are other scenes in which Lumen appears better on PC. Take for example the forest area. In that scene, the PC version packs better Lumen effects.
As I mentioned before, ARK: Survival Ascended is still in Early Access. Thus, it’s not fair to judge its performance yet. Moreover, the game does have some technical and visual problems. Despite those issues, ARK: Survival Ascended can still be visually impressive at times. This comparison also highlights why the PC version is so demanding. Oh, and on Xbox Series X, the framerate keeps fluctuating between 30fps and 60fps. So, that’s another thing to keep in mind.
ARK: Survival Ascended will remain in Early Access until the end of 2024. Or at least that’s Studio Wildcard’s initial plan.
Enjoy and stay tuned for more!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Not sure what to make of this comparison. What GPU was the PC using? If it was the Flagship 4090 then we’re probably looking at a $3,000 gaming PC compared to a $500 Xbox Series X. Hardly a fair comparison if that is the case.
I will confess up front that I know almost nothing about
consolesblur-boxes and I have no interest in becoming a peasant with dirt spots on my face and clothes that never completely wash away. imo blur-boxes really aren’t powerful enough for decent 4K. They usually get reduced settings and reduced FPS to claim the game is ready to be played at 4K.here comes the dude with *price excuse*….the specs from the xbox are something of a pc from 2019,so…a gtx 1080ti can handle that game pretty well….
Anything better than a RX 6600XT will beat a Series X graphically …..
4K graphics for most newer games are upscaled from 1200-1600 while using a mixture of low and medium PC settings. While definitely not as good as a midrange and up PC you definitely get your 500 bucks worth.
Yeah thinking the same thing, the comparison seems too vague to make any real conclusions. Any rig over a 3070 and all that that needs to complement it is going to be way more expensive than just an xbox and the game cost. And what about 2k res? 1080p res? max settings are a huge waste of resources and are used to just sell hardware nothing more. One step down and targeted resource hog settings even lower will give you a vastly better performance with minimal fidelity loss.
The biggest problem I have with the game benchs here is the use of “ultra” wasteful setting, bump it down to high, med presets you’d get results that are much more realistic but won’t sell cards and hardware as well though. Scam world everywhere for the most part now.
Just speaking for myself I would like to see more games benched at High Settings. tbh I usually can’t tell the difference between Ultra and High in graphics quality unless I study the screenshots carefully. I don’t usually study screens when gaming. I spend my time actually playing the game. Eye Candy is nice and all but for me it has seriously diminishing returns after a certain point. I would rather have higher fps especially in shooters.
I think the main reason that so many sites bench at the highest settings is because for the average gamer these days graphics quality is the number one most important consideration about a game. A game running like dogsh*t takes second place in their concerns.
Textures usually benefit from Ultra settings if you have enough VRAM available there is little to no difference in performance. However things like Shadows and Ambient Occlusion and Volumetric processing not so much and come at an extreme cost for very little improvement. If you are more CPU bound then turning down things like grass and crowd density can help considerably.
It’s up to the PC User to optimize games for their particular hardware and those who aren’t willing to do so may as well buy a console.
I give gamers more credit than that especially since we get soo much batching about stutters and crashes etc I think sites could easily just add a high preset to their testing. I get medium isn’t going to sell cards, which are sites real bread and butter. It should be another ratio really, most want high fps with pretty graphics but would trade small graphical fidelity for stable fps. And devs don’t help with games made primarily for consolers with all the tricks like dof, vignette, lens flare and things that effect perf that very few want really.
Stutter and huge fps swings that you notice are a big problem, even at low settings like aw2, have those issues which it really shouldn’t for a largely static world and such but the effects they introduce are both annoying-headache inducing and crash fps, cause stutter. Remedy doesn’t care over several games proven. I think UE5 isn’t going to help either, even if it’s possble to optimize it for that, devs don’t do it, they don’t care about pc even though it’s by far the largest install base, consoles make them more money. Bad perf actually induces more hw sales too, sad.
So are you saying this in a case where the difference can be seen from a mile away?
Objects are completely missing, there are flat textures to simulate them, stuff that’s been around for decades, but it’s no use, coincidentally when you go above the perfect level of the consoles everything becomes useless, at least until the next console comes out…
Enough with the price story when it comes to technical differences, which you can resolve by upping the ante if you’re looking for that climax.
With a €1500 configuration you won’t struggle to triple the performance of the consoles.
They run at ridiculous resolutions and 60fps so to speak, DF can no longer pretend nothing is happening, it no longer finds excuses and justifications that can make sense of dense renderings like the last 2nd generation of consoles.
But just try it and console users will immediately believe it, you just have to want it…
But regardless, as I started: If we talk about differences and priorities, the price must be mentioned when the parenthesis regarding price is opened, otherwise the balance of the world of tastes is lost…
Do you tare the percentage of value in relation to the price in everything you buy? I really don’t believe it. That’s the usual excuse useful to console fanboys, since it’s clear that below a certain threshold you can’t compete with the PC, at least until you consider the cost of the games…
That price is also good because it is based on game royalties and now obligatory services, try not to forget that.
If not, you do the price ratio when it’s not needed, and you even do it towards only one part…
I generally do always consider the price/perf ratio when it comes to this sort of thing and most things yes. As I said turn the res down on the console to 2k then turn up a bunch of other stuff poof you have a decent looking game, not the desert we see in that video. 1080p and even more things can be turned up for the same percentage of use of the hardware.
Ok if 4k(usually dlss “4k” really) is absolutely necessary sure but be prepared to pay a lot more for it, but it’s not everyones priority list to have 4k/60 in fact I’d say most people’s aren’t, but we get a very very high selection bias in game sites and such because those in that hobby tend to spend a lot on their equipment. Consoles are a more casual type of thing. And no I don’t own nor will ever own a console.
Last one I had was a 3ds with 5 top games for around 200$, sold it all for minimal loss for a couple years of usage. I have a 2060m laptop that cost a couple hundred bucks more than a console for 3 years now, all the free games I want. So price/perf is insane. Consoles just don’t have the options and tweaks/mods that pc’s have so not interested.
At this point it’s even more clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
As a result, you passively absorb consular partisan tendencies without realizing it.
Who tells you that XSX runs at 4K? But if at 60fps in some cases it drops to 648p, what gives you the idea of having all that margin?
How do you weigh the quality/price ratio? From what little we understand, you’ve never seen a scale…
On PC with a 4070/7800xt you can even exceed 3x.
Of course, if to reach 3x it has to go to native 4K at 120fps, when on console it doesn’t reach 720p at an unstable 60fps, it means that you don’t want to weigh.
If you have another passion, spend on that, possibly without pretending to weigh badly where you are satisfied with little.
On the general discussion of the quality-part ratio always considered, it is better not to open a wide divide. If so you’re cheap, I’ll cut it short.
Ooofff
LMAO!
Hell what Disgusting aweful the piss console version looks. And that says it all, when even the pc version looks like sh*t!
Is it one of the most demanding PC games to date because it deserves to be or is it one of the most demanding PC games to date because it’s using the Unreal Engine 5? The evidence that developers would be better off avoiding UE5 for now continues to mount.
Off Topic: I guess that I wasn’t paying attention a couple of years ago but apparently Wolfire Games filed an Antitrust Suit against Valve saying that Valve suppresses competition in the market through the dominance of Steam. Well, obviously Steam is dominant but it’s because they give the gamer more of what they want. They don’t suppress. They just run a far better service so gamers tend to buy their games there instead of on other stores.
There is a company out there that really is suppressing competition and that is Epic with their practice of making some games timed exclusives to EGS. That is truly anti-competitive behavior.
It has nothing to do with UE5, UE5 is extremely good its just most devs dont care and never optimise anything so we end up with performance issues on low-mid hardware. ARK devs are known for doing very bad optimalisation, one of the reasons why ARK was so hated was its poor performance before UE5 and absurd size due to terrible coding.