-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How POWERFUL is the Xbox Series X?
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
- Opinion Clickbait Platform
- Status
DynamiteCop!
Banned
Most RAM isn't even used now, a large section of allocated memory is just merely that, allocated but not actually doing anything beyond processing redundancies in code.
hyperbertha
Member
Having less RAM is the very reason devs are forced to use workarounds like LOD, streaming, loading screens etc to fit things into the play area.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
I'd say bandwidth is more of a concern there, not necessarily capacity.
sonomamashine
Member
That would be huge if they manage to sell this at 399$, but what about series S ? where would it sit, at what price ?
This is all good but unlikely, series S might be the console where they would make money, unless they make a portable series S at 399$ then it's game over.
Can't keep up with this sh!t, pink, blue, green hair, white, wtf.
The easiest thing that comes to mind is Resolution, Ray Tracing, More FPS, More CU's.
pawel86ck
Banned
Sure thing, but developers cant allocate all available RAM just for GPU, therefore bandwidth split in XSX is not even an issue. No game will use more than 10GB for GPU when there's only 13.5 GB available.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
There won't be a Series S, that's kind of the point.
Last edited:
hyperbertha
Member
The consequence of having a split memory pool is the Xbox ends up with about 3 GB less RAM than the PS5 for its rendering ops. Its low bandwidth portion cannot be used for rendering every frame without reducing the whole system bandwidth greatly, causing a major performance hit,
Last edited:
MadchesterManc
Member
A lot of people like to talk as tho those extra 2tf will be used to create games that run higher settings than Ps5, but it wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft used it to push DXR instead.
If a game looks similar to the Ps5 version with added DXR or has better raytracing then it's still a win for the fanboys and the extra power can be leveraged for more titles to include DXR features.
Seems logical but until we see what Microsoft are up to then we really don't know.
If a game looks similar to the Ps5 version with added DXR or has better raytracing then it's still a win for the fanboys and the extra power can be leveraged for more titles to include DXR features.
Seems logical but until we see what Microsoft are up to then we really don't know.
SplunkyMunkey
Member
That was my point earlier it might not be now but say very further down the line when games get more demanding with a split pool memory anything over 10gig they would have to lower the bandwidth to 338 i think where ps5 is the same 448 and may be more then 10gig i personally dont know but while the series x might be he better machine ps5 might be the better performer
When it comes to the ram setup I think it’s very simple really. MS could have gone with the ps5 memory setup at a cheaper cost. The fact that they went with a more expensive setup means that it must be able to provide bandwidth advantages for the console with the way the ram will be utilised.
SplunkyMunkey
Member
O yeah they would up to 10gig then due to the sillyness of a much slower bandwidth anything more then the whole bandwidth would be an issue for series x. But if they did do what ps5 is having then i think some1 needs to replace cerny lol
pawel86ck
Banned
I'm trying to say developers on PS5 will never use all available 13GB anyway just for GPU. For example on PS4 games like killzone use around 3GB VRAM for GPU from 5.5GB in totall. With only 13.5GB available to games no developer will use more than 10GB just for GPU, because they also need RAM for other things.
hyperbertha
Member
Your argument was revolving around how the xbox's split memory decision had no consequence, when it fact it has a consequence. The GPU CAN use more than 10 gb on the ps5, because more than 10 GB is available after accounting for system and CPU working sets. On xbox, this is not the case due to split memory, is what I'm saying.
Apollo Helios
Member
Let's see if this thread gets derailed or not. Maybe GitHub folks are not early birds. Or they are only interested in attacking other side without enjoying talking about their favorite plastic boxes.
^^ I wrote that last night around 4th post in the thread and then fell asleep before posting. And voilà, today the thread is not derailed at all, there is no one posting tweets taking a shit on Series X, no supposed 'dev' tweets saying bad stuff about it. Some PS fans posts here and there but It's as if Sony fans are not coordinating a shitpost storm and just appreciate Series X as well. Shame on all those xbox trolls who got nothing better to do in this epidemic and decide to shitpost and derail every single fucking PS thread there is. Shame on you!
^^ I wrote that last night around 4th post in the thread and then fell asleep before posting. And voilà, today the thread is not derailed at all, there is no one posting tweets taking a shit on Series X, no supposed 'dev' tweets saying bad stuff about it. Some PS fans posts here and there but It's as if Sony fans are not coordinating a shitpost storm and just appreciate Series X as well. Shame on all those xbox trolls who got nothing better to do in this epidemic and decide to shitpost and derail every single fucking PS thread there is. Shame on you!
DynamiteCop!
Banned
What you're saying is totally inaccurate, the reality is we'll likely never see either of these consoles even hit 10GB's of VRAM period, and as a function of that the other 3.5GB's will be used for all other parts of the system related to the game.
There is no consequence, you're also forgetting that Microsoft's 10GB's has 112GB/s more bandwidth which means it can cache and flush 112GB/s more data than Sony's.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
SplunkyMunkey
Member
No1 is really saying nothing bad about either console there both gonna able to play in 4k and there both going to have there fair share of problems like ps5 with less performance on a gpu and cpu 100mhz its pretty not much difference and series x with there split ram
SplunkyMunkey
Member
Btw thats not entirely true either as the other 6gig from the 10 is on a way slower bandwidth
DynamiteCop!
Banned
Yeah, and the GPU will never see any of it, so it doesn't fucking matter, at all..
VAVA Mk2
Member
PC - Ultra Instinct Goku
SplunkyMunkey
Member
Well it can lol but then the whole of the 10gig would be the same as the slowest bandwidth which would be slower then ps5. Thats the problem with split ram. Well least its not bad as the split ram was for ps3 256gig each
MilkyJoe
Member
DynamiteCop!
Banned
I don't think you're really grasping what's being said here. Microsoft's 10GB's of 560GB/s memory can cache and flush 112GB/s more data than Sony's machine.
That means the first 10GB's for the Series X can cache and flush what would equate to the same amount of data as 12.5GB's from Sony's machine. You're just not getting this. No one will ever hit 10GB's of VRAM usage on the Series X, EVER.
hyperbertha
Member
The fact that the PS5 has more than 10 GB free for the GPU makes it absolutely certain its games will use all of it, which is more than 10 GB. On the Xbox, you are correct, games will need to use less amount of RAM, unless they want to reduce the whole system bandwidth to way less than the ps4.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
It'd be for the best. Xcloud can already serve a lot of the purpose Lockhart would've, I still think we should keep an eye out for what comes out of the Samsung partnership in that regard.
$399 is starting to look kind of likely for XSX, I can see $449 also happening. With the way things might be going in the near-future economically, $499 might be off the table.
Also in terms of the XSX RAM (for everyone discussing it): keep in mind the fast/slow bandwidth use-cases are not hard-set to those tasks. I.e devs don't HAVE to use only the fast RAM for graphics. The virtualized split was done for One X BC mainly (so in a way both systems have had to make compromises for BC, PS5 much moreso), but devs will probably find ways of prioritizing their data within RAM so that high-priority graphics data sits in the 560 GB/s pool, lower-priority sits in the 336 GB/s pool, and some game code sits in both pools as well. They can even swap the assets around within memory as needed for further optimization.
It's a quirk devs don't need to bother with on PS5, but it does mean they will have more granular control over data management within the main memory on XSX.
Last edited:
SplunkyMunkey
Member
Exactly then u get people saying but but its faster within that 10gig. Yes i agree. And what happens when games get more demanding maybe halfway through the life cycle when 10gigs has reach its peak and ps5 can use more. Im sorry but i see it as series x best for graphical effects largely due to its GPU and i see ps5 as more of the best performer. Due its ram setup
DynamiteCop!
Banned
Do you not understand data flow? You're not going to overflow the memory to where all of it's being consumed at once, not to mention as stated given the bandwidth disparity 10GB's of memory in the Series X effectively operates to the same degree 12.5GB's does in the PS5 because that 10GB's can move the same amount of data as 12.5GB's in Sony's machine in the same amount of time.
To add to this do you not understand that a game doesn't just need VRAM to run? The CPU needs RAM, the audio processing needs RAM, various other functions within the system will consume RAM outside of the reserve amount parsed to ancillary tasks like the OS and so on. This isn't some "GOTCHA" moment, you're completely overestimating VRAM usage.
Last edited:
-Troid-
Banned
It's like two Gamecubes stacked on top of each other
I wish it had a handle on the back like the GC so I can carry it around like a briefcase.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
You are looking at the RAM setup wrong though. The use-case for the fast and slow pools are not hard-set; devs get to choose. They'll maximize usage of high-priority data in the fast pool and low-priority data in the slow pool, swap data between the pools as needed, etc. Also, ML and AI techniques will help with rendering at lower resolution and providing the output at higher resolutions, which means you don't need massive data assets actually in the RAM to still get their native resolution quality in the output to the user's TV.
Pretty much any contention issues you'll face on XSX will also happen on PS5, and also keep in mind other things that will eat into available bandwidth on cycles such as the OS (probably 2 GB reserved on PS5, so 14 GB physical memory available for games), Tempest Engine (20 GB/s, or 428 GB/s for non-Tempest Engine access), the SSD, etc.
We don't even know if PS5 will support features like ML yet; they have to rely on Khronos and Vulkan for that support and they only just introduced FP16 ML support in the back half of last year.
martino
Member
ultra instinct gogeta
pawel86ck
Banned
Are you suggesting PS5 has more RAM? To my knowledge both consoles will have 16GB with only around 13GB available to games, therefore the same limits should apply on both consoles.
Yes, XSX RAM has asymetric bandwidth, so theorethically it can lower data transfer to GPU in scenario when developer would want to use more than 10GB for GPU but practically this scenario will never happen given how games are made. No developer will allocate more than 10GB just for GPU, because they also need memory for other important things.
Usually PS4 games were using around half available memory just for GPU, for example killzone was using 3GB, so even a little bit more than half from 5.5GB available to games. If we assume the same scenario (half memory dedicated to GPU) on XSX we end up with 6.7GB and there's still 3.3GB left just in case if some developers will try to use more memory than usually for textures.
But lets assume MS engineers dont know what they are doing, so not only GPU will not benefit from much higher 560GB/s bandwidth but their decision will make XSX even slower, and not to mention PS5 audio chip and SDD will make PS5 GPU even faster, so in the end Cerny build slower console on paper, but faster
.
Son_of_Zardoz
Banned
A bit off topic bit I had thought that XSX would come in at $500 and XSS (Lockhart) would be $300 but now it seems like there is a chance (who knows how much of one) that XSX could release at $400. If that's the case I could see them ditching XSS, at least for now.
My thinking was always that XSS needed to be at least $200 cheaper than XSX to make sense and that it should launch at the same time. Now though, if MS could hit $400 with XSX (and that's a big if) I could see them waiting a while and letting costs come down then releasing XSS for as cheap as possible.
If the XSX launches for the cheaper price maybe they don't have to kill the X1X yet (I'd say they would have to if XSS was coming at the same time as XSX) but they would have to get the price down significantly. If not kill it and either way they should go ham on the X1SAD. Do a major, cost-saving revision and start selling it at $99 as the gateway to XCloud/Gamepass.
My thinking was always that XSS needed to be at least $200 cheaper than XSX to make sense and that it should launch at the same time. Now though, if MS could hit $400 with XSX (and that's a big if) I could see them waiting a while and letting costs come down then releasing XSS for as cheap as possible.
If the XSX launches for the cheaper price maybe they don't have to kill the X1X yet (I'd say they would have to if XSS was coming at the same time as XSX) but they would have to get the price down significantly. If not kill it and either way they should go ham on the X1SAD. Do a major, cost-saving revision and start selling it at $99 as the gateway to XCloud/Gamepass.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
If both consoles come it at 449 or lower I’d be super shocked. It would be a pleasant surprise and great for gamers but I just can’t get over my doubt. Just seems like so much tech to package under 499 bucks
hyperbertha
Member
PS5 has MORE than 10 GB after accounting for the other things such as CPU working set. Developers can and WILL use those extra gigs. Killzone Shadowfall used 4.x GB memory as far as I'm aware. But its memory usage doesn't matter. Whatever amount of memory it was using was a result of PS4 memory limitations. The more memory devs have, the more they are going to use. There is absolutely NO reason to limit memory usage despite having more memory available, unless they love loading screens and reduced quality assets.Are you suggesting PS5 has more RAM? To my knowledge both consoles will have 16GB with only around 13GB available to games, therefore the same limits should apply on both consoles.
Yes, XSX RAM has asymetric bandwidth, so theorethically it can lower data transfer to GPU in scenario when developer would want to use more than 10GB for GPU but practically this scenario will never happen given how games are made. No developer will allocate more than 10GB just for GPU, because they also need memory for other important things.
Usually PS4 games were using around half available memory just for GPU, for example killzone was using 3GB, so even a little bit more than half from 5.5GB available to games. If we assume the same scenario (half memory dedicated to GPU) on XSX we end up with 6.7GB and there's still 3.3GB left just in case if some developers will try to use more memory than usually for textures.
But lets assume MS engineers dont know what they are doing, so not only GPU will not benefit from much higher 560GB/s bandwidth but their decision will make XSX even slower, and not to mention PS5 audio chip and SDD will make PS5 GPU even faster, so in the end Cerny build slower console on paper, but faster
[/QUOTE]
How do you move data that's not there? Xbox can move 560 Gb/s sure, but its moving a smaller pool of data and any new stream of data is much slower to come in.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.001
Xbox Series X's and PS5's specs are scary, easily the most powerful generation ever.
KlickKlack
Banned
pawel86ck
Banned
Here's detailed VRAM usage from killzone shadow fall and it shows 3GB VRAM from 5.5GB totall available to games. You say PS5 has more than 10 GB after accounting for the other things but how that's possible when both consoles will have the same amount of RAM (16GB)? What extra "gigs" are you talking about?
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
The XSX also has more than 10 GB after accounting for CPU etc. Just 10 GB of that will be in the 560 GB/s pool and the remaining would be in the 336 GB/s pool.
Both systems are going to have a portion of their RAM sitting in main memory. We'll say 2 GB for PS5 and 2.5 GB for XSX. So 14 GB for system use on PS5, 13.5 GB for system use on XSX (provided the 2.5 GB isn't culled back/lowered).
If both games are running the same and that game needs 3 GB of physical memory for non-graphics tasks for a given cycle or set of cycle, then both systems have to give up 2 chips worth of bandwidth for that, or 112 GB/s bandwidth. So that will drop PS5's bandwidth for GPU down to 336 GB/s, since the memory is uniform in the bandwidth.
OTOH, the XSX has split pools and maybe for that 3 GB of physical memory the dev is accessing it the faster 560 GB/s bandwidth (remember, it's optimized for graphics but it doesn't have to ONLY be used for graphics data). That leaves XSX with 448 GB/s for GPU.
PS5's advantage in that scenario would be having more physical memory (12 GB) to work on for the GPU vs XSX (8 GB). That's a case of PS5 taking a wide & slow approach while XSX takes the narrow & fast, in that given scenario. They both have their benefits and drawbacks you can extrapolate from here.
(*You can also do that above scenario while factoring in the OS (not going to touch on the OS compression to SSD stuff NX Gamer brought up; both systems could do that but not for critical OS utility files so you wouldn't be shuffling a ton of the OS off to the SSD anyway), too. And this is actually the more realistic version of that scenario.
Supposing both systems have 1 GB of the OS each on a different module, and the 3 GB being requested is on at least those same 2 2 GB modules the OS sits on, that's now 3 modules culled off for each, the remaining to the GPU. AKA 5 modules (10 GB) @ 280 GB/s for PS5, and 7 modules (3 2 GB, 4 1 GB (10 GB)) @ 392 GB/s (7 GB; 560 GB/s pool), @ 186.3 GB/s (3 GB; 336 GB/s pool), @ 373.7 GB/s (10 GB average proportioned to physical memory on fast and slow bandwidths, provided GPU has some data sitting on the slow bandwidth it will alternate access to. Technically this number might be closer to 336 GB/s since the difference between 560 and 448 is 112, not 168) for XSX.
This is probably why MS chose this type of setup, for the dev flexibility in putting non-GPU data on the fast bandwidth when necessary if the GPU still needs as much physical memory and memory bandwidth as possible. *)
I expect (or at least hope) some of it to be used for GPGPU programming tasks; the CPUs in these systems are great but there will still be things down the line they can't do. Having those 16 extra CUs on XSX could work great for AI, physics, logic etc. offloading tasks while still ensuring high framerates for more demanding titles later in the gen.
Last edited:
Imtjnotu
Member
This is big brain thinking right here folks
hyperbertha
Member
I was talking about total memory usage which includes CPU and audio working sets, which will amount to 4,x Gb. Both consoles have same amount of RAM but xbox is allocating the extra ram at a lower bandwidth, which can be used, but only by reducing whole system bandwidth to 336 Gb.
But doing it this way means further reducing memory available for GPU tasks wouldn't it? Unless they want to use the 336 Gb/s portion which would mean performance hits.
Yes all valid. However the benefits of ps5's wider memory pool in terms of data streaming cannot be overstated. Xbox's ability to process whatever data it has in memory faster than the ps5 was never the basis for any argument.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Potentially, but that's why I did a more detailed (and probably real use-case) example after it, since the example you quote wasn't the best to use (didn't factor OS occupancy into account). That's where devs prioritizing GPU data mixed on both the fast and slow bandwidths will come into play as, again, the 336 GB/s pool doesn't have to be exclusively used for non-GPU tasks.
Now, if the GPU is accessing data on that slower pool, then it won't be able to access data on the faster pool simultaneously (I think, just working off assumption here). But since its faster pool is so much faster than PS5's, it has more room to still pull in from the slower pool as well when you look at things on a per-second basis. It may not be able to tap that full 336 GB/s pool (in fact, only 112 GB/s of it, or 2 modules for between 2-4 physical GB more), but it's still something it can do.
Putting critical non-GPU data on the faster pool would mean that if the CPU is accessing from that pool, it's doing so on the 560 GB/s bandwidth so the GPU can still operate on whatever's in that same faster pool, versus just putting that all on the 336 GB/s pool so the bandwidth is essentially "tied up" to only the slower pool like Lady Gaia was saying over on Era.
Is it more work for devs? Yeah. But nothing they aren't used to, and a picnic compared to actual split memory pools (i.e PS3, let alone older systems like Saturn, SNES, MegaDrive etc. where each processor had its own specific memory only it could access (tho no copying of data assets needed to be done on those systems thankfully)). I'm also sure the system itself will have automation tools built in to help with that type of optimization, data movement within the memory, prioritization etc.
Last edited:
You sure ps5 doesn’t have RT cores?While true it's not entirely true... Technically since the GPU has 16 additional CU's and much more RT hardware it could push rendering workloads simply not possible on the PlayStation 5. The PS5 is factually incapable of as many ray intersections as Microsoft's system, there's really no way around this.
Also it's kind of funny that you said 25 teraflops because.....
"For the Xbox Series X, this work is offloaded onto dedicated hardware and the shader can continue to run in parallel with full performance. In other words, Series X can effectively tap the equivalent of well over 25 TFLOPs of performance while ray tracing."
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
This sounds as believable to me as the 9.2 GitHub did to the Sony Super Fans.
Unlike the Sony Super Fans I promised not to harangue, harass or belittle you and I would thrilled if you're correct.
Pallas
Member
Windows-PC
Banned
It's hard to tell how powerful the XBox Series X is, but on a Scale between 1 - 100, I would say 12
V4skunk
Banned
Most people also have over 16gb of system ram on top of the gpu vram...
V4skunk
Banned
PC = Whis
DynamiteCop!
Banned
Series X has 44% more of them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll