Support NeoGAF

[PaintTinJr]

4070ti super.

You have to remember that graph (I think) is missing all this stuff that even with internal geometry resolution being much lower still have to render in native 4k (or lower but still higher than 1080p output).

This cost is missing for DLSS table and I'm sure it's also missing for PSSR because it's game dependent. Every game will have different things, shadow maps, alphas (smoke, fire), HUD, volumetric lights, DOF etc.

People often forget about this and expect the same performance from 4k DLSS performance and native 1080p. This have to be added to the cost of reconstruction.

I also focused on latency here because this is what you were talking about, pure cost in frametime is different.

The column in the table I was comparing from Nvidia is supposed to be taking a native 1080p source and producing the DLSS3 4k equivalent, and that is the cost of the inferencing. Not the calculation of the motion vectors or the TAA-styled history blend pass, and assuming you haven't altered any settings, the native render should be the same workload for TAA pass and the TAA+DLSS pass, if not maybe lighter for the DLSS pass, giving it even more latitude to under calculate the post frame render latency(processing).

The latency numbers you are looking at don't mean anything outside your setup with your TV latency because in an unpredicted new frame change that happen in games all the time, the latency is the time it takes to render, upscale and present that brand new frame, and the latency I am talking about is the upscale processing latency - after the native frame rendering finishes - and in this situation, PSSRs fixed ~1ms is less processing latency for the upscale than DLSS3, and definitely DLSS4's on similar TOPs, and even on more TOPs going by your 4070 ti results.

 

[Fafalada]

I still think if ps6 is 650$ and next xbox 1k but around 50% faster than ps6 and will have steam catalog so also sony games it will be interesting

What I find interesting is the specflation that happens every time a delta for Xb is mentioned.
Rumour says 30% and in this thread we already have 50% and even 100% expectation off the same spec.
Not saying it can't happen but the 18% last time was inflated the exact same way leading up to launch.
(I'm pretty sure extremes were going into 4k with rt vs 1080p without just months before launch...)

Anyway, xb has been playing the spec game for 25 years without a pay off.
8 years ago 2x faster at 25% higher price got outsold 2-3:1 and other times was worse, so not sure where the "but this time will be different, for real, with a worse price/perf ratio" keeps coming back.

The only time they were genuinely competing was when substantially cheaper than competing PlayStation. price parity, let alone premium, never served them to date.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

What I find interesting is the specflation that happens every time a delta for Xb is mentioned.
Rumour says 30% and in this thread we already have 50% and even 100% expectation off the same spec.
Not saying it can't happen but the 18% last time was inflated the exact same way leading up to launch.
(I'm pretty sure extremes were going into 4k with rt vs 1080p without just months before launch...)

Anyway, xb has been playing the spec game for 25 years without a pay off.
8 years ago 2x faster at 25% higher price got outsold 2-3:1 and other times was worse, so not sure where the "but this time will be different, for real, with a worse price/perf ratio" keeps coming back.

The only time they were genuinely competing was when substantially cheaper than competing PlayStation. price parity, let alone premium, never served them to date.

The history of the console market teaches us that to challenge the leading company, you need to launch your console first. Genesis vs. SNES, PS1 vs. N64, and Xbox 360 vs. PS3.
But history teaches us that in two situations, the leading company simply overtakes the first-launcher, primarily because of famous IPs and power.

Only the PS1 managed to take the crown because there was a lot of lobbying; no company wanted to continue using cartridges. Without Square's "betrayal," the N64 would probably have finished the generation in first place.

What Microsoft or any other company needs to do:

1. Launch their console first.
2. The console needs to have the best technology of its time.
3. Have a marketing budget to defend the console from Sony, saying that buying the console is foolish.
4. Have a colossal budget for game production, so that there are as many AAA games as possible to instill in consumers the desire to take risks.
5. Continue releasing many games after the PS6 comes out.
6- their console needs to cost twice as much as a current console but needs to drop to a price lower than the PS6 when released.

What company is crazy enough to try something like that?

 

[Fafalada]

But history teaches us that in two situations, the leading company simply overtakes the first-launcher, primarily because of famous IPs and power.

I think that's oversimplification.
360 won their two primary markets that entire gen, the PS3 only fell further behind as the gen wore on in US or UK. And 360 had a record setting performance in US (IIRC the only Playstation that sold better in US was the PS2).
But 360 was also - at least 25% cheaper the entire time, and up to 50% during periods.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

What I find interesting is the specflation that happens every time a delta for Xb is mentioned.
Rumour says 30% and in this thread we already have 50% and even 100% expectation off the same spec.
Not saying it can't happen but the 18% last time was inflated the exact same way leading up to launch.
(I'm pretty sure extremes were going into 4k with rt vs 1080p without just months before launch...)

Anyway, xb has been playing the spec game for 25 years without a pay off.
8 years ago 2x faster at 25% higher price got outsold 2-3:1 and other times was worse, so not sure where the "but this time will be different, for real, with a worse price/perf ratio" keeps coming back.

The only time they were genuinely competing was when substantially cheaper than competing PlayStation. price parity, let alone premium, never served them to date.

yes last rumours suggest more like 30%

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

I think that's oversimplification.
360 won their two primary markets that entire gen, the PS3 only fell further behind as the gen wore on in US or UK. And 360 had a record setting performance in US (IIRC the only Playstation that sold better in US was the PS2).
But 360 was also - at least 25% cheaper the entire time, and up to 50% during periods.

Overall, it was a defeat.

The Xbox 360 is an excellent console, but its strategy was unsustainable.

1. We don't know how many million Xbox 360s were replaced.
2. We don't know if Microsoft counted the exchanged consoles as new sales.
3. The Xbox 360's specs are very good; I believe the subsidy was proportionally higher than the PS3's.
4. The Xbox brand lost traction due to Sony's efforts with the PS3 and its popular ips, just as I suggested.
5. The Xbox lost market share during the PS4 generation.
6. Perhaps the PS4 was more popular than the Xbox 360 in real terms, assuming that 10 million Xbox 360s were replaced.
This would make the victory over the PS3 small, basically the result of an extra year on the market

 

[Bojji]

The column in the table I was comparing from Nvidia is supposed to be taking a native 1080p source and producing the DLSS3 4k equivalent, and that is the cost of the inferencing. Not the calculation of the motion vectors or the TAA-styled history blend pass, and assuming you haven't altered any settings, the native render should be the same workload for TAA pass and the TAA+DLSS pass, if not maybe lighter for the DLSS pass, giving it even more latitude to under calculate the post frame render latency(processing).

The latency numbers you are looking at don't mean anything outside your setup with your TV latency because in an unpredicted new frame change that happen in games all the time, the latency is the time it takes to render, upscale and present that brand new frame, and the latency I am talking about is the upscale processing latency - after the native frame rendering finishes - and in this situation, PSSRs fixed ~1ms is less processing latency for the upscale than DLSS3, and definitely DLSS4's on similar TOPs, and even on more TOPs going by your 4070 ti results.

1ms for PSSR you say? 1ms for DLSS3 as well:

1080p TAA:

4K DLSS3 Performance:

4K DLSS4 Performance:

Cost of PSSR or DLSS is not exactly fixed. It's different for different games. "On paper" cost of DLSS is not full frametime cost of it because you have to add what game is also rendering with 4k OUTPUT vs. standard 1080p resolution.

Every game have different cost and gains of FSR4 and DLSS:

 

[Sintoid]

Powerful to play TV?
To play with the power of the cloud?
To play Kinect Star Wars (I'm Solo!)
Or to play on everything It's an Xbox?

The real problem is not the power of the hardware, It is Microsoft and its marketing team

 

[Det]

And nothing was learned, as always, by Xbox fans.

Once again, having orgasms through the ass with the power of numbers on a piece of paper.

 

[Det]

What company is crazy enough to try something like that?

Well, there you have it... If the competitor doesn't do what you mention, the consumer doesn't need a competitor.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

Isnt the Xbox more powerful than the PS5 already?

Xbox issue is everything else BUT the console.

 

[peish]

Isnt the Xbox more powerful than the PS5 already?

Xbox issue is everything else BUT the console.

Yes in general SX is already 20% faster, take note ps5 paper specs are best case scenarios as it operates on variable clocks basis, while SX specs is on sustained basis

 

[Griffon]

30% is not even the difference between PS5 and PS5 pro.

 

[Unfortunatecookie]

I still think if ps6 is 650$ and next xbox 1k but around 50% faster than ps6 and will have steam catalog so also sony games it will be interesting

If the Nextbox is $350 more than the PS6 then it will be dead on arrival. No chance whatsoever of succeeding in the console market with a $1,000 console.

 

[sncvsrtoip]

If the Nextbox is $350 more than the PS6 then it will be dead on arrival. No chance whatsoever of succeeding in the console market with a $1,000 console.

Probably, nonetheless interesting concept to do something between classic console and highend pc

 

[PaintTinJr]

1ms for PSSR you say? 1ms for DLSS3 as well:

1080p TAA:

4K DLSS3 Performance:

4K DLSS4 Performance:

Cost of PSSR or DLSS is not exactly fixed. It's different for different games. "On paper" cost of DLSS is not full frametime cost of it because you have to add what game is also rendering with 4k OUTPUT vs. standard 1080p resolution.

Every game have different cost and gains of FSR4 and DLSS:

You aren't normalizing for dynamic resolution because the PSSR pass is deterministic per pixel like the validation I did of Cerny's numbers and for 1080p -> 4K - the other thread where - it is just over 1ms on a PS5 Pro, so unlike DLSS where you aren't normalizing for the hardware TOPs anyway, the cost for the ML AI isn't deterministic and varies by the phenomenon in the scene and is even more multiples of TOPs/processing time when claiming superior quality using DLAA or Quality mode. and if using DLSS3/4 with FG or MFG too, which is typical then the processing latency for DLSS3/4 is no where close to PSSR's 1ms in worst case scenarios of fresh unpredictable frames.

The biggest cause of variation in a PSSR frame runtime compared to native with TAA is the TAA-history blend which is done in fragment shaders and proportional to the resolution, but the actual ML AI inferencing upscaling in PSSR is both lower processing cost and completely deterministic, hence why PS5 Pro can use it with GT7, but Nintendo don't use DLSS in highly competitive fast action MK world.

 

[kikonawa]

The problem isnt the hardware the problem is xbox.

Lets see when the ' New series x Turbo' or whatever name they will invent for the console

 

[th4tguy]

Xbox has a heavy os layer which eats into a decent % of the performance lead it has over the ps5. Makes the 30% more like 15% and at the level of pixels being pushed, it's hardly noticeable.

 

[GermanZepp]

Power War between consoles was always fun but retarded all the way. From the 900p vs 1080p to this day. If you care about power there is pc. The discussion for consoles is exclusives good games, original ips. And that's mostly or almost out of the landscape. 2 or 3 exclusives (that probably end up that on pc) that I'm interested in a console generation is not worth it.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

Overall, it was a defeat.

The Xbox 360 is an excellent console, but its strategy was unsustainable.

1. We don't know how many million Xbox 360s were replaced.
2. We don't know if Microsoft counted the exchanged consoles as new sales.
3. The Xbox 360's specs are very good; I believe the subsidy was proportionally higher than the PS3's.
4. The Xbox brand lost traction due to Sony's efforts with the PS3 and its popular ips, just as I suggested.
5. The Xbox lost market share during the PS4 generation.
6. Perhaps the PS4 was more popular than the Xbox 360 in real terms, assuming that 10 million Xbox 360s were replaced.
This would make the victory over the PS3 small, basically the result of an extra year on the market

A lot of 360's success was down to PS3's launch price.

 

[Unfortunatecookie]

Probably, nonetheless interesting concept to do something between classic console and highend pc

Absolutely. If the marriage between console and PC produces a kickass product then let's do it.