• 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.

DF Direct Weekly #173: PS5 Pro RT Features, PS5 Pro No Man's Sky Settings, Fallout London Launches!

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member


0:00:00 Introduction
0:01:05News 01: Potential PS5 Pro RT enhancements leaked
0:11:52 News 02: PS5 Pro settings leaked for No Man’s Sky
0:20:07 News 03: Modder reaches 700Hz on CRT monitor
0:33:50 News 04: Old Xbox Ones suffer from update issues
0:45:23 News 05: Intel seeking to address CPU failures
0:54:47 News 06: Super Monkey Ball 50Hz physics tickrate fixed
0:58:21 News 07: Fallout London launched!
1:05:51 News 08: Castlevania: Rondo of Blood headed to Mega Drive
1:12:49 Supporter Q1: Should Valve provide community settings templates for games on Steam Deck?
1:20:31 Supporter Q2: Will Nintendo launch multiple discrete Switch 2 variants at launch?
1:25:07 Supporter Q3: How can Microsoft deliver a capable Xbox handheld while keeping price in check?
1:30:59 Supporter Q4: Could Microsoft offer generic Xbox emulators to sidestep licensing issues?
1:36:06 Supporter Q5: How would the PS4 have fared if it only shipped with 4GB of RAM?
1:41:55 Supporter Q6: What do you think of stereoscopic 3D on PS3?
1:49:25 Supporter Q7: Have PC ports improved since Alex’s “13 Ways to End Lousy PC Ports”?


 

Imtjnotu

Member
Big Brother Popcorn GIF by Pop TV
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
I love how Alex is finally acknowledging that it is primarily the new BVH8 engines and possibly other unnanounced hw allowing PS5 Pro to reach 2-4x RT performance. I'm sure he'd like everyone to forget that he proposed the additional CUs alone were responsible for the RT boost.

Equally amusing that they gloss over the fact that internal resolution for NMS Series X version bottoms out at 1080p vs 1296 for base PS5. I guess they are no longer bewildered by the console with the bigger GPU being outperformed by the "inferior" gpu in the PS5.
 
Last edited:
I love how Alex is finally acknowledging that it is primarily the new BVH8 engines and possibly other unnanounced hw allowing PS5 Pro to reach 2-4x RT performance. I'm sure he'd like everyone to forget that he proposed the additional CUs alone were responsible for the RT boost.

Equally amusing that they gloss over the fact that internal resolution for NMS Series X version bottoms out at 1080p vs 1296 for base PS5. I guess they are no longer bewildered by the console with the bigger GPU being outperformed by the "inferior" gpu in the PS5.
They will never stop shilling for MS. Kind of a sad to kill your credibility like this.
 
They have been quite critical of MS recently. But almost nobody here mentions it begins I assume it goes against the narrative built up here. Heck, they are even critical in this video and the article attached to it.
They never mention the strengths of the PS5 and always claim XSX should be performing better than it is. They actually platformed disingenous dipshits like Albert Penello, whose words fed into deluded nutjobs like misterxmedia. They actually claimed the initial XBO games black crush issue was increased details and a proof that the XBO was punching above its weight, corroborating Penello's claims. DF have zero credibility when speaking about PS hardware as they have continuously downplayed its strengths and capabilities. They have a long way to go to win back that trust. They could start by stating in simple words: XSX is not stronger than the PS5, it is better in some aspects and worse in some others. They will never do that though.
 

Lysandros

Member
Equally amusing that they gloss over the fact that internal resolution for NMS Series X version bottoms out at 1080p vs 1296 for base PS5. I guess they are no longer bewildered by the console with the bigger GPU being outperformed by the "inferior" gpu in the PS5.
Is it about the new No Man's Sky graphics update? Not necessarily surprising but interesting nevertheless. Can you point me to the source analysis?

Edit: Nevermind, it was at ~14:25 in the video, the lowest resolution seem to be ~40% higher on PS5 indeed.
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
They never mention the strengths of the PS5 and always claim XSX should be performing better than it is. They actually platformed disingenous dipshits like Albert Penello, whose words fed into deluded nutjobs like misterxmedia. They actually claimed the initial XBO games black crush issue was increased details and a proof that the XBO was punching above its weight, corroborating Penello's claims. DF have zero credibility when speaking about PS hardware as they have continuously downplayed its strengths and capabilities. They have a long way to go to win back that trust. They could start by stating in simple words: XSX is not stronger than the PS5, it is better in some aspects and worse in some others. They will never do that though.
You’re mad that they interviewed a director at Microsoft? Isn’t that part of their job? How on earth are they to blame for what some crazies run with that on twitter as well? That can’t police people taking interview snippets out of context and running with it. As for the XSX vs PS5 speed debate they have already literally said the consoles are the closest any two consoles have been and that most games are identical, with the PS5 having a number of software and hardware advantages.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Equally amusing that they gloss over the fact that internal resolution for NMS Series X version bottoms out at 1080p vs 1296 for base PS5. I guess they are no longer bewildered by the console with the bigger GPU being outperformed by the "inferior" gpu in the PS5.
As the PR goes (and DF has mentioned that before too) that advantage 'only' applies to 'last-gen' centric renderers and rasterization focused games.
That's why especially RT path is faster with UE5 titles like The First Descendant on the PS5... oh wait...

Anyway - the hypothetical RAM discussions are always fun.
4GB PS5 would have gotten a lot more flack than the damage control XBox got for the first 2 years. It's a much easier mouthpiece to criticise textures without even looking at media, we've had entire generations of that already.

For me the more interesting question would be what would a 256MB 360 turn out like. Optionally against 512MB PS3 we got.
But much better question - how would that same 360 stack against the 192MB PS3 that was also supposed to launch in 2005 (yes that's not a typo - but all 192 would be eDram - so the bandwidth disparity would have easily been 10:1, or worse). And had both HD consoles launched in 2005 - what would that mean for the Wii...

The 8MB GS PS2 would also be an interesting thing to see (worse hw-shortages and more money bleeding for Sony in year 1 - but then they did far worse for the PS3, so it's not even that unfathomable).

I love how Alex is finally acknowledging that it is primarily the new BVH8 engines and possibly other unnanounced hw allowing PS5 Pro to reach 2-4x RT performance. I'm sure he'd like everyone to forget that he proposed the additional CUs alone were responsible for the RT boost.
It's a bit of a mish-mash - he's careful enough to acknowledge that feature list is not contextualized enough to infer much from it (unless you know the terms explicitly - and he admits not to).
But on the flipside he's dancing around with the assumption that 2-4x faster RT refers to
a) relative to PS5
b) a subset of RT pipeline

Now - both 'might' be true - but the leaks don't confirm or deny any of it. Which raises the question if he's referencing things he's seen on DevNet (Richard is inferring they may have seen the contents themselves - which in of itself is a bit touchy thing to go on record with) - or he's just taking most convenient guess.
Wording as has been leaked to me at least negates b) - I'd read it as 'RT end-2-end' is X times faster - but I'm not pretending I've had access to the above.
For a) - harder to say, I've seen examples of both in PS4 Pro documentation - where we explicitly had statement to 'pipeline X is not Y times faster than before - and that was NOT relative to running on base PS4' and then of course there were statements on 'X times faster than PS4' as well for some elements. So 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
You’re mad that they interviewed a director at Microsoft? Isn’t that part of their job? How on earth are they to blame for what some crazies run with that on twitter as well? That can’t police people taking interview snippets out of context and running with it. As for the XSX vs PS5 speed debate they have already literally said the consoles are the closest any two consoles have been and that most games are identical, with the PS5 having a number of software and hardware advantages.
Not mad, just calling out these ignorant biased mouthpieces. How come these geniuses never pushed back against that snakeoil salesman, instead swallowing his lies whole and then seeing the black crush as the prophet Penello's prophecies coming true. Alas, the XBO was a PoS and they could not sell their narrative.
I am asking for a clear example, where they have said "PS5 is stronger than the XSX, but the XSX might do better in some games due to reasons". If they are as unbiased as you claim they are, then you should have no issue in finding a paraphrased form of the quote I am looking for, as they never stopped making statements of the form "XSX is better but it loses to PS5 because ....................................................."
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
Not mad, just calling out these ignorant biased mouthpieces. How come these geniuses never pushed back against that snakeoil salesman, instead swallowing his lies whole and then seeing the black crush as the prophet Penello's prophecies coming true. Alas, the XBO was a PoS and they could not sell their narrative.
I am asking for a clear example, where they have said "PS5 is stronger than the XSX, but the XSX might do better in some games due to reasons". If they are as unbiased as you claim they are, then you should have no issue in finding a paraphrased form of the quote I am looking for, as they never stopped making statements of the form "XSX is better but it loses to PS5 because ....................................................."
They said it one of the directs where they asked developers why XSX didn’t beat the PS5 more often. The answer is a much better shader compilation and while the PS5 is weaker in compute its rasterisation units run faster. But you’ll believe what you want to believe so I won’t argue further.
 
They said it one of the directs where they asked developers why XSX didn’t beat the PS5 more often. The answer is a much better shader compilation and while the PS5 is weaker in compute its rasterisation units run faster. But you’ll believe what you want to believe so I won’t argue further.
I asked for a simple statement from anyone of the paragons of virtue and fairness at DF stating in unequivocal terms that: "PS5 is stronger than the XSX, but the XSX might do better in some games due to reasons", since they never tire of making the same statement for team green. You are not arguing further because you do not have any argument, accept that your beloved commentators have a bias for Team Green.
 

Zathalus

Member
I asked for a simple statement from anyone of the paragons of virtue and fairness at DF stating in unequivocal terms that: "PS5 is stronger than the XSX, but the XSX might do better in some games due to reasons", since they never tire of making the same statement for team green. You are not arguing further because you do not have any argument, accept that your beloved commentators have a bias for Team Green.
thumbs-up-nod.gif
 

PaintTinJr

Member
I love how Alex is finally acknowledging that it is primarily the new BVH8 engines and possibly other unnanounced hw allowing PS5 Pro to reach 2-4x RT performance. I'm sure he'd like everyone to forget that he proposed the additional CUs alone were responsible for the RT boost.

Equally amusing that they gloss over the fact that internal resolution for NMS Series X version bottoms out at 1080p vs 1296 for base PS5. I guess they are no longer bewildered by the console with the bigger GPU being outperformed by the "inferior" gpu in the PS5.
There's a far more subtle implied PlayStation 5 and Pro RT is just as restricted as XsX RT in there too, as there is zero need to mention that the BVH accelerators are in the texture units in context of PS5 and Pro when they asynchronously work in tandem to shaders doing texture lookups(RtPS5 Cerny) in contrast to the BVH acceleration or shader texture lookup, as was the info given in Microsoft's original XsX technical deep dive.

But I guess that does bring up an interesting question: How can the Ps5 Pro have two BVH engines - for processing two separate BVH structures of differing game world areas - that process in parallel (presumably via async processing gaps) - unless the Pro is effectively an SLI GPU solution with two separate GPU buses, say as a stacked 30 and 30 CUs solution or has a dedicated secondary BVH accelerator off chip?
 
Last edited:

SonGoku

Member
There's a far more subtle implied PlayStation 5 and Pro RT is just as restricted as XsX RT in there too, as there is zero need to mention that the BVH accelerators are in the texture units in context of PS5 and Pro when they asynchronously work in tandem to shaders doing texture lookups(RtPS5 Cerny) in contrast to the BVH acceleration or shader texture lookup, as was the info given in Microsoft's original XsX technical deep dive.

But I guess that does bring up an interesting question: How can the Ps5 Pro have two BVH engines - for processing two separate BVH structures of differing game world areas - that process in parallel (presumably via async processing gaps) - unless the Pro is effectively an SLI GPU solution with two separate GPU buses, say as a stacked 30 and 30 CUs solution or has a dedicated secondary BVH accelerator off chip?
Why wouldn't the the new RDNA4 RT changes (BHV accelerators) be backwards compatible with how RDNA 3 & 2 handled RT?
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
unless the Pro is effectively an SLI GPU solution with two separate GPU buses, say as a stacked 30 and 30 CUs solution or has a dedicated secondary BVH accelerator off chip?
I doubt it's anything that complex - Box intersection instruction runs 4 ray-box tests, triangle runs one - on current AMD hw. This addition could just mean both instructions double their throughput (8 boxes, 2 tris per instruction) - either that, or they can issue more of them in parallel.

Why wouldn't the the new RDNA4 RT changes (BHV accelerators) be backwards compatible with how RDNA 3 & 2 handled RT?
I don't think it's a compatibility issue - but eg. if it's what I suggest above, you may have to recompile shaders to take advantage of the increased throughput instructions.
Also depending on just 'how much' overall intersection test throughput has increased - there may be further optimizations in BVH tree balancing (see how different GPUs optimise their BVHs differently https://chipsandcheese.com/2023/03/22/raytracing-on-amds-rdna-2-3-and-nvidias-turing-and-pascal/).

Suffice to say 'BC mode' may - similarly to PS4Pro and 1X - under utilise some of the new hw features. But not sure that's a problem - we want more proper updates ;)
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Why wouldn't the the new RDNA4 RT changes (BHV accelerators) be backwards compatible with how RDNA 3 & 2 handled RT?
I'm not quite sure I follow, but if this is concerning the texture units, PS5 and Pro don't block like the others according to Cerny in Road to PS5., so compatible from Pro to PS5 is expected, but PS5 isn't an off the peg RDNA2 solution so are different anyway.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
I doubt it's anything that complex - Box intersection instruction runs 4 ray-box tests, triangle runs one - on current AMD hw. This addition could just mean both instructions double their throughput (8 boxes, 2 tris per instruction) - either that, or they can issue more of them in parallel.
...
I was focusing in on the word "engine" and taking that to mean what it would typically denote in Graphics to be the collection of data and processes, and hardware that encapsulates the entire engine and my interpretation of that in context is that the purpose of a second engine would be to typically use 1 for real-time lighting engine inside a building and the other mutually exclusive lighting engine for outside, effectively one for the area you are in and the other to start pre-calculating the mutually exclusive area you will next enter.
 
Top Bottom