Xbox 360 slim
Member
Xbox is cooked is all I know. My series x is a gears 3 MP/old cod box.
an xbox 30% more powerful than a playstation, what do you think about that ?
- Thread starter Geometric-Crusher
- Start date
cinnamonandgravy
Member
could be, but there's a strong business use for sony to get PSSR positively differentiating itself from FSR.
guess we'll see.
finally watched it myself.
regarding CNNs (for upscaling): "Both SIE and AMD will independently have the ability to draw from this collection of network architectures and training strategies."
doesnt mean it's open source (e.g., FSR4 isnt, at least right now) or that AMD will give everything to everyone.
also doesnt mean SIE will stop developing it themselves after the collab via future PSSR iterations.
I don't think you've looked hard enough. This is Cerny's last interview.
PS5 Pro is getting a big upgrade in 2026 — I asked Mark Cerny what’s coming, and why AMD’s future PC GPUs feel more 'PlayStation' than ever
Sony's Mark Cerny explains how AMD and Project Amethyst contributed to the PS5 Pro's impending 2026 upgrade
Both companies can freely use the results of the collaboration in their own work, as AMD already has by releasing FSR 4.
"This is not for proprietary technology," Cerny explained. "This is really trying to move the industry forward. Obviously we want to use these technologies on our consoles, but these technologies are available to any of AMD's customers freely."
Because what I didn't really think through until after I chatted with Cerny, Connell and Huynh was the fact that AMD is also building software and hardware based on learnings from Project Amethyst.
So when AMD ships its next wave of graphics cards, they will have been designed with input from Mark Cerny and Sony engineers.
"Big chunks of RDNA 5, or whatever AMD ends up calling it, are coming out of engineering I am doing on the project," said Cerny. "And again, this is coming out of trying to move things forward. There are no restrictions on the way any of it can be used."
AMD chief GPU architect Mike Mantor and his team will presumably be able to use whatever they glean from Sony (via Amethyst) to design the next generation of AMD graphics hardware, which will lay the foundation for a future of PC gaming.
If rumors are to be believed, we could see the next generation of AMD graphics tech as soon as 2026. But on the Sony side, Cerny doesn't expect to be talking about anything other than software for years to come.
"AMD is moving extremely quickly," Cerny said. "What I'm trying to do is prepare for the next generation of consoles, so my time-frame is multi-year here."
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
These things are still possible.
Let's go back to the Xbox One era. Microsoft decided to use a weaker apu. You know, the Xbox One and PS4 APUs are low to mid-range chips. The hd 7950 already existed, Microsoft could have used it however AMD's Fusion technology couldn't synthesize a more powerful apu than the PS4's apu, which would force them to use the classic cpu and gpu design. Believe me if they use the hd 7950 the xbox would blow the ps4 out of the water, it would be as impressive as the original xbox was.
The bottom line is that the apu system is limiting, while restricting one company's choice to use one apu with X CUs and the other with Y CUs, thus creating the PS5-XBSX situation. Therefore, if Xbox abandons the apu system, with a little creativity and a larger power supply, anything is possible, but this is a dream; they will continue using the boring APUs even if Magnus imo.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
It's always been like this, bro, with less than 50% is almost absolute parity. What difference do you think there is between the PS1 and the Saturn?
For example, to make things easier If the PS2 and Dreamcast had the same hardware (cpu, ram etc) and the PS2 had 6.2 gigaflops, the Dreamcast would have 4.34 gigaflops. However, the Dreamcast in our timeline has only 1.4 gigaflops, less CPU power, and less memory.
In other words, 30% is just a placebo, since Sony and MS don't have the courage to team up and create an MSX or 3DO together.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
these older systems are hard to use as an example since back then they were all drastically different in their architecture.
you couldn't even port games 1 to 1 from PS1 to Saturn, multiple elements had to be adjusted.
that's not happening anymore.
by meaningful difference I mean consistently sharper looking image and constantly smoother performance.
a 30fps mode running at 40fps on the other system with equal settings... or a 40fps mode running at 60fps with equal settings etc.
something that's noticeably better. similar to the difference between the Xbox One and PS4. sure the PS4 didn't offer a completely different experience, but games were very noticeably just looking and running better.
Neo_game
Member
I was pretty sure PS6 even with new architecture will have 60CU like PS5 Pro because PS5 also had 36CU like the PS4 Pro. But if the rumor about PS5 only having 40 to 48CU is true then that is quite low IMO. Xbox leaks says it will have 68 CU for a console ? that is good 50% more CU than the PS6.
SX also had 44% more CU than PS5 but in the end due to clock speed and customization etc there is not much difference between them. It could be similar story next gen as well.
SX also had 44% more CU than PS5 but in the end due to clock speed and customization etc there is not much difference between them. It could be similar story next gen as well.
YOU PC BRO?!
Gold Member
Really, the performance differential means nothing if it will only be used to slightly boost the average resolution.
Microsoft have abandoned cool new technologies such as SFS and DirectML this generation that may have helped them stand out. This happened early on when they amalgamated sdk between Xbox and Windows DX12. A big generic powerful box is all they require now as that maximises support across all platforms. This better suits their current strategy as much as I despise it.
Microsoft have abandoned cool new technologies such as SFS and DirectML this generation that may have helped them stand out. This happened early on when they amalgamated sdk between Xbox and Windows DX12. A big generic powerful box is all they require now as that maximises support across all platforms. This better suits their current strategy as much as I despise it.
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
Agreed, but that would come at 5090 prices and if you're not skimping on GPU you can't skimp on PSU, CPU, RAM, storage, and cooling. You're looking at an inaccessible $3K-$4K console that won't leave store shelves at that price. Consoles today are created to sip power like tea with their pinky's up using laptop components for a mere $300 - $750. This tactic has gotten each manufacturer to consider distributing games on all platforms and also consider even lower powered handhelds. I couldn't imagine the market you would be searching for when I could just get a prebuilt pc or simply build one myself.
What we need is developers with more talent to harness the power that exists in current devices that aren't trying to brute force their games to run. It's amazing what developers got working in the 90's and early 2000's with lean game engines and very little overhead.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I would buy 2 PS6 Pros tomorrow at 5090 levels for $4k each and not think twice about it but again I am not in the normal crowd
Gamer_By_Proxy
About to beat off
See guys, we are still in this.
ExtendEmbraceExtinguish
Member
Silly image (I am aware of the context) compared to what msft has achieved. A) there is no Sony os to damage windows (reason why Xbox was made) b) gamepass prevents closed ecosystems from going open c) purchased publishers and future publishers allow msft access to pc/console/mobile ecosystem tied to windowsSee guys, we are still in this.
Only competition will be tencent/nvidia/tech titans as when the industry comes close to maturity with cloud as the default expect all other publishers without a billion/trillionaire master to be bought.
Rambone
Member
Microsoft needs to give me a compelling reason to buy one of their consoles going forward. The main appeal of consoles, for me, was always the promise of exclusive titles, experiences you couldn't get anywhere else. But that allure has faded. At this point, I'd rather stick with a traditional PC, which generally delivers a superior experience in terms of raw power. Of course, that performance comes at a cost, which can be a barrier for some.
If Microsoft really wants to shake things up, maybe they could leverage their financial muscle to heavily subsidize high-end PC hardware and slap an Xbox logo on it. That might get my attention but let's be honest, that ship has probably sailed. I'm tired of settling for 30 or 60 fps at sub-4K resolutions. I want the full-fat, juicy hog: 4K at 120 fps, no compromises.
If Microsoft really wants to shake things up, maybe they could leverage their financial muscle to heavily subsidize high-end PC hardware and slap an Xbox logo on it. That might get my attention but let's be honest, that ship has probably sailed. I'm tired of settling for 30 or 60 fps at sub-4K resolutions. I want the full-fat, juicy hog: 4K at 120 fps, no compromises.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Gamer_By_Proxy
About to beat off
They're the biggest 3rd party publisher and will probably be pretty mediocre at it. That's about it. No one cares how 3rd party publishers compete or about cloud.
Jimmy_liv
Member
This is where I'm at. I'd be prepared to pay an absolute premium for a console which way at path tracing levels.
pacman4000
Member
This is a very erroneous statement, obviously.
Powerful PC hardware (more powerful than 9060XT or PS5Pro) is an advantage for many games, including the non-PC exclusive ones.
Last edited:
pacman4000
Member
So? Higher resolution (and/or higher framerate) might impress someone else.
But lets not pretend those are the only possible differences. Path tracing leaves room for many other visual improvements.
You are right however, end results are very much limited by development costs. The more work someone puts into something, naturally, the better the end result will be. But that's more of a question on a higher level, on a game economics level, rather than a hardware performance difference question.
Last edited:
pacman4000
Member
From people who think they can determine performance based on CU numbers only. (i.e. no analysis at all, they are just guessing while lacking all relevant data)
In practice, differences in power draw will dictate differences in performance more than anything else (and no, it doesn't mean the relationship has to be linear/proportional).
RafterXL
Member
Who cares? The hardware was never the problem. The XSX is a great console, hardware wise. The company is the issue, and that's not changing, in fact it's moving further and further into the direction that got them to this point in the first place.
This would be compelling, simply for the fact that DLSS alone is so significantly superior to anything AMD is doing, it would instantly make whatever console that used it vastly better. But, again, it's still Microsoft and they'd find a way to screw it up.
Starbuck2907
Member
If you play Hellblade 2, you'll realize that almost no games are maxing graphics out and cheaper more efficient consoles would be nice. I have a pc if I need better graphics than Hellblade 2.
PaintTinJr
Member
On what metrics? PSSR1 destroys all other solutions on processing time and needs zero latency hiding because of how it works to-the-metal, and has filters that handle certain phenomena better than DLSS and FSR4.
There is no upside for AMD or PlayStation to merge the two, as it would stop AMD bringing FSR4 to lots of devices that don't have the ability to process like the Pro does, and PlayStation is a console and Sony is never going to choose simplicity when the latency downsides of DLSS/FSR4 as-is on PC is a waste on a finite hardware console and would make them using their own proprietary image filtering techniques an all or nothing - either give away the R&D to make it part of FSR, or not be able to use it by keeping it out - so their own PlayStation fork of FSR4 that they can change to be PSSR2 is still their best solution.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
FSR4 destroys PSSR.
Odinnii
Member
thats why they developed Xbox mode for new ROG Ally no?
PaintTinJr
Member
You are simplifying, it needs latency hiding, so no, a 1ms async solution like PSSR for a game running at 60, 120fps or higher is far superior because it can actually provide native frames in the allotted time slice and not frame-out on unpredicted directional transitions. Image quality in general is superior for FSR4, but PSSR as you would expect has proprietary filtering techniques that in themselves handle certain things better.
It is normal that PlayStation will want to keep all its PSSR wins and combine them with FSR4's overall bigger win.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I care about image quality in my scaling solution. hands down., FSR4 has better image quality
Last edited:
ecosse_011172
Banned
Mark Cerny looks worried.
PaintTinJr
Member
I care more about gameplay and control as a starting point of competency before a minor delta in PSNR, particularly in action games because we "play" games, not watch them.
Obviously I would like both real performance and image quality, but the difference between PSSR and FSR4/DLSS in competitive gaming is latency, and on that basis PSSR wins.
Shubh_C63
Member
With diminishing returns, a 30% more power is negligible affect on actual sales of the software.
Nobody is going to buy multi-platform titles or BUY an xbox console to have remotely the same experience as PS6.
It would need to be as drastic as Xbox always offering 144fps and PS6 still at 30or60, which is impossible.
Nobody is going to buy multi-platform titles or BUY an xbox console to have remotely the same experience as PS6.
It would need to be as drastic as Xbox always offering 144fps and PS6 still at 30or60, which is impossible.
PaintTinJr
Member
As many others have already said, 30% in technical specs or even real game visuals is less than than PS4 versus XB1, and as shown by PS4 Pro versus X1X(or PS2/GC vs Og Xbox) it depends in which specs, because typically more fill-rate to overdraw - like the PS2, PS4 Pro, PS5, originally the 360 and eventually the PS3 via SPUs - provides superior fx which are more noticeable as a superior render make the claim pretty meaningless with context.
We also have the scenario 30% versus developer wastage is nothing as shown by the early years of PS3 compared to when they got up to speed. Even now with PS4 and PS5 since I look at PS3 exclusives like KZ3 and consider that PlayStation itself has failed to curb hardware utilisation wastage in development since and have struggled to meet those old development standards to get full use of what is in the box.
We also have the scenario 30% versus developer wastage is nothing as shown by the early years of PS3 compared to when they got up to speed. Even now with PS4 and PS5 since I look at PS3 exclusives like KZ3 and consider that PlayStation itself has failed to curb hardware utilisation wastage in development since and have struggled to meet those old development standards to get full use of what is in the box.
PSSR is higher latency than DLSS/FSR4 though. In games that let you toggle between TAA/PSSR we've seen the perf delta be pretty high, much more so than DLSS/FSR4 and some games like F1 drops it entirely for the 120Hz mode because it's not performant. E.g. in GOW: Ragnarok it's about a +2ms difference (1000/78=12.82ms, 1000/67=14.92ms), which is in line with the figure Sony has given themselves. Meanwhile FSR3->FSR4 is like ~1ms, and nVidia just publishes what the DLSS cost is.
Mownoc
Member
I'm not really interested in expensive, powerful consoles. The main market for consoles is a low cost and simple entry point to gaming. If Sony are smart the PS6 will be a more budget oriented device, in the age of AI upscaling they don't need to chase raw gpu power and push the price up to $600+.
If I'm going to be spending $800+ on a machine... I'll just build a PC and put SteamOS on it.
Without subsidising and a high price point the future Xbox devices are extremely niche.
As for the 30% figure.... that's nothing when it comes to console. If we're talking just GPU that's a smaller gap than the Xbox One to PS4. The only difference it would result in is upscaling from a lower resolution with FSR/PSSR.
If I'm going to be spending $800+ on a machine... I'll just build a PC and put SteamOS on it.
Without subsidising and a high price point the future Xbox devices are extremely niche.
As for the 30% figure.... that's nothing when it comes to console. If we're talking just GPU that's a smaller gap than the Xbox One to PS4. The only difference it would result in is upscaling from a lower resolution with FSR/PSSR.
Last edited:
Tobimacoss
Member
Technically, there will only be timed exclusives on both sides, if MS pulls off PC/Console convergence.
Bondo
Member
If they do release another console i have no doubt they will throw their warchest at it to power level it into existence, as usual.
They can claim the most powerful console at over $1000 - PC range. While having zero exclusives since they operate now as a 3rd party def also.
Wont be returning to that ecosystem as a secondary console.
They can claim the most powerful console at over $1000 - PC range. While having zero exclusives since they operate now as a 3rd party def also.
Wont be returning to that ecosystem as a secondary console.
Lightbreak
Member
Xbox Series X was more powerful than the PS5 and look where it got them
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
It's even possible, but the hardware would be expensive for the company, which would have to pay subsidies and increase game development costs. Many people think the Dreamcast didn't have DVDs because DVDs were expensive, but that's not true, the problem is that Sega would have to increase the development costs of regular games, that's the point.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Isn't the Xbox mode just a visual skin to hide the desktop mode? I know MS were planning to build a completely gaming focused hybrid OS at one point, but not sure they're there yet
Bojji
Member
What are you talking about? Cost of PSSR is similar to FSR2 or a bit higher, nothing new - it's not doing stuff that Reflex is doing on PC (cutting latency on game level).
X Xyphie posted cost of DLSS already:
And when it comes to competitive gaming, many console games have 60fps locks, 120hz at best and in that mode they rarely even use PSSR. On PC you can play them in 240+FPS so what latency would that have?
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
The soul of consoles is the catalog, not the power.
Horseganador
Member
That the difference in favor of PS6 will be even greater (if there is an Xbox console...)