Support NeoGAF

[GetemMa]

more console warring. Sigh.

I'm buying a PS5 because Sony, by and large, doesn't put their first party titles on PC the way that MS does. That's the only reason and if they did put their games on PC at launch I would never buy a PS5. I made this decision before the new consoles were even named.

The whole SSD/IO solution that PS5 has sounds remarkable but my excitement for it is tempered by the fact that Multiplatform game developers will not be designing their games around a proprietary architecture that half their potential market does not have. For multiplats the PS5 might avoid problems with texture and object streaming and that's great, but the GPU may turn into a bottleneck for maintaining native 4k and using all the ray tracing bells and whistles, which are extremely demanding on GPUs. High I/O throughput and fast SSDs are not replacements for GPU power which is where graphics MUST be rendered before they are projected onto your TV. You can not get around this. On the other side of the coin, MS may have some trouble matching the consistency and detail in game environments but may have an easier time maintaining native 4k with Ray Tracing because their GPU is clearly more robust. I really, really, really, can't say it enough, I really doubt there will be much difference on multiplatform games, which are 95% of the games sold. 4k/30fps/RT on, will be the target for most games on both systems and I'm sure the usual suspects will make sacrifices for 60fps, like shooters, fighting games, sports games, and platformers.

Sony will probably do what it has done for the last 2 gens, put out gorgeous first party titles and that is where this new hardware will get to stretch its legs properly. Beyond those 1st party games and system features, new hardware architecture shouldn't weigh heavily on what system to buy. If you love Sony's first party games then buy one. If you like MS first party games and don't own a gaming PC, then buy an XSX. It should be that simple for you. Making your choice based on I/O bandwidth or GPU teraflops is doing yourself a disservice.

 

[geordiemp]

Gimped is not the right choice of words. But rather they had the option to make it significantly faster. The way i see it.
MS was aiming for a specific speed and had a raw SSD speed in mind with probable price. Some engineers came out and said we can do this that and the other and tremendously improve the speed using software also. Then MS executives then said why the hell do we need 4.8? lets do like 2.4. Its cheaper. blah blah blah.

That's the way i see it. Its a horrible decision. why? people Don't look at special software implementation, or "coding to the metal" when they buy stuff.
Everytime i buy a consumer electronic, i look at raw specs period. Everyone does. They look at raw stats. Specific specs. Before it was GPU, CPU and RAM. Those are the only three you had and you had to PR and market the hell out of that.

But now with next gen, we finally get a new comer SSD. By purposely leaving the raw speed at 2.4 while knowing that Sony will use one with raw speed double that. They personally CREATED the valcuum for a new WAR. SSD Wars. A war that had the capacity to change the TF narrative in which they were pushing. Its a complete failure on their part. They frankly didn't learn their lesson from last gen or from any other category MS is involved in.

When people buy consumer electronics. They are only focusing on raw specs and that's it. 95% of gamers are not on reddit or gaming forums. They do a quick search, look at quick specs and they are done. If they happen to stumble on one of Sony's PR SSD narrative none-sense. It only takes just a little bit for them to be convinced. They will look over the raw specs and say "Hmm this article does has a point, their SSD is 2x faster."

Its very easy to market 12 over 10 TFLOPs. that's why no one buys Cerny's wide vs narrow none-sense.
Its very easy to market 5.5 GB/s over 2.4 GB/s and claim that your game is impossible on any other platform.
But its almost impossible to market SFS or DirectStorage. Because its not a raw spec that can be compared.

It really doesn't matter how the SSD/IO solutions result in the real worlds. Its still an initial marketing loss. Especially for an underdog its not good. From now through the end of the first year of next gen. There will be an onslaught of SSD none-sense in the media. Everyday there's a new SSD Hype and FUD article. Its ridiculous and it will continue and the causal gamers will stumble upon it.

Whats easy to market is what people see with their eyes, all the SFS. Geometry engine, cache scubber dubbers, velocity Big fucking gun super ray illumination, wingardian levatosa is just marketing and PR.

The proof is in the running of code and players can see for themselves. what works and what looks whatever

So this is the current sony Ps5 marketing, best visuals to date bar none...until they show stuff next week or 2.



When do you think we will see anything impressive on XSX that gets players talking about next gen visuals ?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Has anyone(Digital foundry? or personally done and uploaded to Youtube) done a test analyzing how the Xbox series X SSD solution fares compared to PC-SSD solution with the game 'State of Decay' showcased in 'Microsoft's loading times tech demo that displays the difference in speed between the Xbox Series X and the Xbox One'

The demo showcased only Xbox 1 vs Xbox series X. A test done with PC version of State of decay 2 and compared with Xbox Series X video(linked above) would be quite helpful in understanding the advantages of Xbox unique solution like DirectStorage/XVA implemented for their SSD.

I recall seeing someone an a gaming podcast (I think it was a gaming podcast) compare SOD2 loading on XSX with it loading on their PC and it was at least 2x faster on XSX versus their PC setup (which had an SSD, but the specific type I don't remember), possibly more.

Wish I could remember where I saw it to link the vid in question.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I do believe we will see differences but I don't believe 3rs parties will build their games around Sonys I/O system.

Which is one of the reasons why Sony worked closely with Epic to optimise UE5 so that lots of devs won’t have to. Others will
Optimise in time like they do with FLOPS differences.

 

[megreotsugua]

Has anyone(Digital foundry? or personally done and uploaded to Youtube) done a test analyzing how the Xbox series X SSD solution fares compared to PC-SSD solution with the game 'State of Decay' showcased in 'Microsoft's loading times tech demo that displays the difference in speed between the Xbox Series X and the Xbox One'

The demo showcased only Xbox 1 vs Xbox series X. A test done with PC version of State of decay 2 and compared with Xbox Series X video(linked above) would be quite helpful in understanding the advantages of Xbox unique solution like DirectStorage/XVA implemented for their SSD.

Oh there is one. I'm not sure where I found the link but I think it's in one of the reddit comments. It's a link to a tweet from a guy who did exactly that.

The PC SSD on the same scenario loaded 12 seconds. Basically 2 seconds slower than the xsex.

Edit: Oh here it is. Presenting the ultra-fast bottleneck-laden Directstorage® and Velocity Architecture™.

 

[DarkMage619]

Well since devs will target the PS5 and port to Xsex, FPS shouldn’t be a factor - they’ll cap at 30 or 60... not worth doing anything else for 2 or 3 extra Xsex frames.

Raytracing ... so far a total unknown. If Minecraft quality at low frames and res is the best that will come of it, it’s a waste of money and time.

Where did you hear that PS5 was going to be the target platform for development? Wouldn't it be an issue to develop a game for a SSD solution that doesn't exist anywhere else. Would make more sense to develop on a platform that doesn't have that system and scale it for the PS5.

 

[sinnergy]

Sony has outdone MS yet again with PS5. They knew that SSDs is the most revolutionary generational step and they simply designed a marvelous APU that is praised by everyone. GPU differences is the smallest we have ever seen in any console generation and that's a FACT.

PS5 has tons of co-processors that offload tasks from CPU/GPU, XSX might have some of that but not to same degree otherwise Microsoft will be shouting that from top of their roofs.

PS5 has the way better audio chip ( to do the same in XsX you will have to take resources from CPU/GPU. You might not be able to replicate Tempest Engine if at all)

PS5 has way more capable I/O solution and more than double the bandwidth ( largest difference between the two systems)

Lets ignore Xbox strange RAM setup and simply say that XsX has faster Ram than PS5, don't forget that XsX GPU needs to feed 52CUs with data while PS5 Ram can be more than sufficient for 36CUs.

Only area where Xbox has clear advantage to me is Raytracing due to having 16 more CUs than PS5. We still needs to examine RT performance with high clocks, PS5 might surprise in this area.

So in Summary:

CPU: XSX >= PS5 (Different is so small not even worth mentioning)
GPU: XSX > PS5 (18% smallest difference ever)
I/O : PS5 >>> XSX (all I/O tasks is offloaded on PS5, universally praised system)
Ram: XsX>=PS5 ( this one is tricky because XSX weird ram setup and requirement to feed more CUs on XSX)
Audio: PS5>>>XSX (TE has never been done before, superior audio to ALL users)
SSD: PS5>>>>XSX ( more than double the BW coupled with crazy good I/O)
RT: XSX >>? PS5 ( 16 more CUs means more IE but we still don't know high clock effects in RT)

Lets not forget the most important thing for any gaming device:

The controller: PS5 >>> XSX

Looking at the overall package, its clear that PS5 is easily the more thought out and superior system. I expect $499 for both but Microsoft should be hard pressed to price match Sony otherwise their system would look less appealing giving the technical specs.

Easily

 

[geordiemp]

Oh there is one. I'm not sure where I found the link but I think it's in one of the reddit comments. It's a link to a tweet from a guy who did exactly that.

The PC SSD on the same scenario loaded 12 seconds. Basically 2 seconds slower than the xsex.

Edit: Oh here it is. Presenting the ultra-fast bottleneck-laden Directstorage® and Velocity Architecture™.

So the velocity architecture and dedicated silicon speeded it up by 2 seconds, or about 20 % over the PC SSD ?

You do realize that non of that applies to XSX right?

See above

 

[geordiemp]

NM

 

[megreotsugua]

So the velocity architecture and dedicated silicon speeded it up by 2 seconds, or about 20 % over the PC SSD ?

Yes, the same bottlenecks in PC is present in xsex.

The only advantage xsex has over PC is the decompression asic. But PC can use all cores for decompression during load time. Yet, they loaded the game at almost the same time.

There is no I/O complex in the xsex like in the PS5 that streamlines the whole loading of data.

 

[eastwood333]

So according to Matt,the PS5 has the SSD advantage and XSX is "more powerful in many ways" and "can do things PS5 can't". Key words "in many ways" is quite telling. I expected him to say something like "in some instances" That's from a well respected Sony dev.

Sounds like a pretty good trade off honestly.

Given MS's great ability at software, is it possible MS can improve the I/o speeds via software updates to improve the systems architecture? Or is the I/o more of a hardware thing? Can MS make improvements to the architecture?

 

[pasterpl]

So the velocity architecture and dedicated silicon speeded it up by 2 seconds, or about 20 % over the PC SSD ?



See above

2 seconds faster vs ssd that is faster on paper and with Xbox one game (not optimised)

 

[geordiemp]

2 seconds faster vs ssd that is faster on paper and with Xbox one game (not optimised)

Greased lightning

 

[geordiemp]

So according to Matt,the PS5 has the SSD advantage and XSX is "more powerful in many ways" and "can do things PS5 can't". Key words "in many ways" is quite telling. I expected him to say something like "in some instances" That's from a well respected Sony dev.

Sounds like a pretty good trade off honestly.

Given MS's great ability at software, is it possible MS can improve the I/o speeds via software updates to improve the systems architecture? Or is the I/o more of a hardware thing?

Hardware mainly and dedicated chips, or CPU and software, either way it costs. Sony spent lots on thism, if it was easy software why would they bother ?

Yup even stevens, I bet sony games stream high assets all the time, and MS put in lots of rays in first party stuff, or as phil alluded to recently going high frame rate gaming I saw interview recently

At least there are trade offs, I just get tired when one console has to rule them all.....Should be fun.

Just hope both MS and Sony put in lots of options next gen, some prefer 1080p and high farme rates, some like shiny things.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

So according to Matt,the PS5 has the SSD advantage and XSX is "more powerful in many ways" and "can do things PS5 can't". Key words "in many ways" is quite telling. I expected him to say something like "in some instances" That's from a well respected Sony dev.

Sounds like a pretty good trade off honestly.

Given MS's great ability at software, is it possible MS can improve the I/o speeds via software updates to improve the systems architecture? Or is the I/o more of a hardware thing? Can MS make improvements to the architecture?

That's basically been the common accepted idea: PS5 has the SSD I/O advantage, GPU frequency advantage (which benefits the speed of working on data in the caches and pixel fillrate), and maybe a better audio solution (seems powerful enough to potentially consume 20 GB/s of system bandwidth). XSX is expected to have raw computational advantage, RT advantage and RAM bandwidth advantage (on GPU optimized pool).

Given XSX's advantages are mainly in the GPU area, and we don't even have info on all the standard RDNA2 features (let alone most any of the optimizations outside of the PS5's GPU cache scrubbers), and it's very difficult to figure what customizations XSX has. If I'd have to take a guess, they're at least somewhat related to ML, RT, further development on executeIndirect, and some hardware to function with SFS's features.

But there's of course the rumors that both systems have some RDNA3 features as well. One other customization I'd probably expect on XSX's end regarding GPUs is a larger L3 cache for the GPU (to further saturate the higher CU count).

 

[eastwood333]

Hardware mainly and dedicated chips, or CPU and software, either way it costs. Sony spent lots on thism, if it was easy software why would they bother ?

Yup even stevens, I bet sony games stream high assets all the time, and MS put in lots of rays in first party stuff, or as phil alluded to recently going high frame rate gaming I saw interview recently

At least there are trade offs, I just get tired when one console has to rule them all.....Should be fun.

Just hope both MS and Sony put in lots of options next gen, some prefer 1080p and high farme rates, some like shiny things.

I would expect some games assets simply loading a bit faster on PS5, while XSX would have a little more noticeable pop in the distances. Not much more than that in terms of SSD on 3rd party games. We'll see soon enough

 

[killatopak]

2 seconds faster vs ssd that is faster on paper and with Xbox one game (not optimised)

While I’m pretty sure the small difference is because of the game itself not being optimized for SSD, isn’t XSX the one with the faster SSD on paper?

PC: 3.5GB/s
XSX: 2.4 GB/s raw which translates to 4.8 GB/s due to decompression and I/O improvements.

Let’s not even mention the velocity architecture and sfs.

This is what is meant when games themselves are the bottleneck for the utilizing SSDs completely. The game has to be made with it in mind in order for any comparison to make sense.

 

[geordiemp]

I would expect some games assets simply loading a bit faster on PS5, while XSX would have a little more noticeable pop in the distances. Not much more than that in terms of SSD on 3rd party games. We'll see soon enough

Just Sony first party and anyone using UE5 nanite is likely to fully Leveridge IO is all we can guess (for now)

 

[eastwood333]

That's basically been the common accepted idea: PS5 has the SSD I/O advantage, GPU frequency advantage (which benefits the speed of working on data in the caches and pixel fillrate), and maybe a better audio solution (seems powerful enough to potentially consume 20 GB/s of system bandwidth). XSX is expected to have raw computational advantage, RT advantage and RAM bandwidth advantage (on GPU optimized pool).

Given XSX's advantages are mainly in the GPU area, and we don't even have info on all the standard RDNA2 features (let alone most any of the optimizations outside of the PS5's GPU cache scrubbers), and it's very difficult to figure what customizations XSX has. If I'd have to take a guess, they're at least somewhat related to ML, RT, further development on executeIndirect, and some hardware to function with SFS's features.

But there's of course the rumors that both systems have some RDNA3 features as well. One other customization I'd probably expect on XSX's end regarding GPUs is a larger L3 cache for the GPU (to further saturate the higher CU count).

Agreed. The DF head to head will be very interesting.

 

[jimbojim]

Sony has outdone MS yet again with PS5. They knew that SSDs is the most revolutionary generational step and they simply designed a marvelous APU that is praised by everyone. GPU differences is the smallest we have ever seen in any console generation and that's a FACT.

PS5 has tons of co-processors that offload tasks from CPU/GPU, XSX might have some of that but not to same degree otherwise Microsoft will be shouting that from top of their roofs.

PS5 has the way better audio chip ( to do the same in XsX you will have to take resources from CPU/GPU. You might not be able to replicate Tempest Engine if at all)

PS5 has way more capable I/O solution and more than double the bandwidth ( largest difference between the two systems)

Lets ignore Xbox strange RAM setup and simply say that XsX has faster Ram than PS5, don't forget that XsX GPU needs to feed 52CUs with data while PS5 Ram can be more than sufficient for 36CUs.

Only area where Xbox has clear advantage to me is Raytracing due to having 16 more CUs than PS5. We still needs to examine RT performance with high clocks, PS5 might surprise in this area.

So in Summary:

CPU: XSX >= PS5 (Different is so small not even worth mentioning)
GPU: XSX > PS5 (18% smallest difference ever)
I/O : PS5 >>> XSX (all I/O tasks is offloaded on PS5, universally praised system)
Ram: XsX>=PS5 ( this one is tricky because XSX weird ram setup and requirement to feed more CUs on XSX)
Audio: PS5>>>XSX (TE has never been done before, superior audio to ALL users)
SSD: PS5>>>>XSX ( more than double the BW coupled with crazy good I/O)
RT: XSX >>? PS5 ( 16 more CUs means more IE but we still don't know high clock effects in RT)

Lets not forget the most important thing for any gaming device:

The controller: PS5 >>> XSX

Looking at the overall package, its clear that PS5 is easily the more thought out and superior system. I expect $499 for both but Microsoft should be hard pressed to price match Sony otherwise their system would look less appealing giving the technical specs.

Well, RAM speed per TF on both is roughly the same, yeah. I saw this post in that ERA from where are Matt's posts. Anyway, from page 19, one poster wrote this about RT ( referring to DF:

Those raytracing numbers come from ratio of 4:1 of texturing units ((TMUs) to CUs. RDNA2 is alleged to have its RT hardware from modified TMUs.

XSX:
52 TMUs x 4 x 1.825 GHz ~ 379.6 billion ray ops per second

PS5:
36 TMUs x 4 x 2.23 GHz ~ 321.12 billion ray ops per second

Regarding resolution and pixel fill rate (assuming ROPs capability at 64 pixels per cycle as RDNA1 has 16 RBs capable of 4 pixels each):

XSX:
64 x 1.825 GHz ~ 116.8 billion pixels per second

PS5:
64 x 2.23 GHz ~ 142.72 billion pixels per second

XSX has higher bandwidth to its framebuffer, but bandwidth is shared, so depending on bottlenecks, resolution output isn't clear cut.

VG24/7:Epic rewrite I/O subsystem with PS5 SSD in mind

Those raytracing numbers come from ratio of 4:1 of texturing units ((TMUs) to CUs. RDNA2 is alleged to have its RT hardware from modified TMUs. XSX: 52 TMUs x 4 x 1.825 GHz ~ 379.6 billion ray ops per second PS5: 36 TMUs x 4 x 2.23 GHz ~ 321.12 billion ray ops per second Regarding resolution...

www.resetera.com

Yeah, this 64 ROPS is calculated for 10,3 or 12.1 TF. As some said, 64 ROPS is still a rumour

 

[anthraticus]

So glad I don't care about any of this shit !

 

[jimbojim]

Well, when PC only guy admits that he was wrong and praise Cerny and PS5 SSD tech. LOL

 

[jimbojim]

That's from a well respected Sony dev

Who ever said that he is a Sony dev?

 

[LittleBusters]

more console warring. Sigh.

I'm buying a PS5 because Sony, by and large, doesn't put their first party titles on PC the way that MS does. That's the only reason and if they did put their games on PC at launch I would never buy a PS5. I made this decision before the new consoles were even named.

The whole SSD/IO solution that PS5 has sounds remarkable but my excitement for it is tempered by the fact that Multiplatform game developers will not be designing their games around a proprietary architecture that half their potential market does not have. For multiplats the PS5 might avoid problems with texture and object streaming and that's great, but the GPU may turn into a bottleneck for maintaining native 4k and using all the ray tracing bells and whistles, which are extremely demanding on GPUs. High I/O throughput and fast SSDs are not replacements for GPU power which is where graphics MUST be rendered before they are projected onto your TV. You can not get around this. On the other side of the coin, MS may have some trouble matching the consistency and detail in game environments but may have an easier time maintaining native 4k with Ray Tracing because their GPU is clearly more robust. I really, really, really, can't say it enough, I really doubt there will be much difference on multiplatform games, which are 95% of the games sold. 4k/30fps/RT on, will be the target for most games on both systems and I'm sure the usual suspects will make sacrifices for 60fps, like shooters, fighting games, sports games, and platformers.

Sony will probably do what it has done for the last 2 gens, put out gorgeous first party titles and that is where this new hardware will get to stretch its legs properly. Beyond those 1st party games and system features, new hardware architecture shouldn't weigh heavily on what system to buy. If you love Sony's first party games then buy one. If you like MS first party games and don't own a gaming PC, then buy an XSX. It should be that simple for you. Making your choice based on I/O bandwidth or GPU teraflops is doing yourself a disservice.

Why do you think most people care if Sony puts their titles on PC or not? The only thing that matters to console gamers is the 1st party title is on Playstation and not Xbox.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Why do you think most people care if Sony puts their titles on PC or not? The only thing that matters to console gamers is the 1st party title is on Playstation and not Xbox.

TBF part of the reason is because some people use the case of Xbox first-party being on PC as a case argument to just buy a PC instead of a XSX. So if those convictions held true across the board, if PS 1st-party were to start coming out more frequently on PC, other people could use that as a case argument to buy a PC instead of a PS5.

In both cases the argument is highly flawed because you won't be able to have PCs at the performance of either console for 2-3 years at a price comparable to what the consoles will be launching at, and since consoles always reduce price over time you'll never be able to have an equivalent PC at the price the consoles will be at. For price-to-performance the consoles will always have the advantage, and out of the gate significantly so (someone who needs a full PC rig for comparable performance is looking to spend around $2,000 if not more for GPU, CPU, MB, PSU, RAM, SSD, monitor, cooling fan, casing, and keyboard/mouse and/or controller).

There's less than 5% of PC gamers with rigs currently on par with the upcoming PS5 and XSX, so any exodus of console gamers going to PC wanting that level of performance have to prepare for spending some big cash if they don't have some of the parts already. But back to the point you were mentioning, if what you state is true then people shouldn't be using MS 1st-party being on PC as a case point to try dissuading others from picking up a XSX.

 

[ColonialRaptor]

I’ve been thinking a lot about all the contention around about the new consoles and the PS5 SSD and that it seems PC gamers are worried that they’re no longer going to have the ‘best possible machine’ for the job.

I think my mind has stumbled into the why while I’ve been thinking about it. If you invested thousands of dollars into a high end gaming machine for the purpose of having the best possible gaming experience. Then you heard that the new consoles (that are relatively cheap in comparison) are going to come out with technology potentially more capable (In some areas) than anything on the PC for pretty much the first time in history how would that make you feel?

However I’ve been thinking about this whole thing and sure this solution is really elegant for the console space, in fact I think the SSD on both the Xbox and the PS5 will be awesome and potentially be an area where PC’s have trouble with I think the PC has always been about brute forcing the situation and on any games that might need raw bandwidth than is necessarily possible on a Windows bottlenecked gaming PC the brute force bypass is to load basically the entire game into RAM. The easiest solution on PC is just to make sure you’ve then got 64 or 128gb of ram so that the whole damn game is there instantly. This bypasses the need for fancy custom controller chips or anything else and leads me to solidly believe the PC can and will maintain its position as the continuing brute force king not to mention what we might see fro Nvidia with the 3080Ti.

Me. I haven’t upgraded my gaming pc in many years and there’s no doubt I would like to. Having played the Witcher 3 DLC in 4K on my brothers high end gaming PC on an OLED I realise now what I’m missing. I will definitely get the 4K Tv when the PS5 comes out but I’m not sure about upgrading my PC anymore as much as it allows that freedom I’m looking froward to the plonk down and play with no loading on PS5 big time. But damn if PC gaming isn’t only fun to me when you’re using the best rig possible it loses the grandeur very quickly. So I’ll upgrade my PC when it dies for what I need it for. Web browsing, 4K video and photo and video editing. So it will probably want to be decently specced for games as well anyway.

But then all of this said. If you can afford a crazy high end gaming PC then wouldn’t you be able to afford a PS5 as well? I don’t know if that’s true or not. I’m certainly not sure I can afford both. I mean I technically have the money for both but that doesn’t make spending that money a wise thing to do does it? Then I keep coming back to my personal desire to have access to Game-Pass and the games releasing on PC and Xbox as well so I more and more think I’ll end up with a PS5 and an XSX this gen but not a gaming PC as much as I would like to have one also.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yes, the same bottlenecks in PC is present in xsex.

The only advantage xsex has over PC is the decompression asic. But PC can use all cores for decompression during load time. Yet, they loaded the game at almost the same time.

There is no I/O complex in the xsex like in the PS5 that streamlines the whole loading of data.

I think the XSX has less bottlenecks in it's I/O than a PC but compared to the PS5 it has more of them from my understanding.

 

[megreotsugua]

I think the XSX has less bottlenecks in it's I/O than a PC but compared to the PS5 it has more of them from my understanding.

I agree. I'm sure MS has eliminated some. They have probably scrambled to come up with something when they learned of what Sony was doing but it was too late for them then.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I agree. I'm sure MS has eliminated some. They have probably scrambled to come up with something when they learned of what Sony was doing but it was too late for them then.

Maybe all Microsoft wanted to do was slap an SSD in the system along with a decompressor. There's even speculation that they wanted to go with an even slower SSD.

I'm not sure what happened but it's obvious that Microsoft didn't take the SSD had a big priority when compared to Sony.

 

[Ascend]

Oh there is one. I'm not sure where I found the link but I think it's in one of the reddit comments. It's a link to a tweet from a guy who did exactly that.

The PC SSD on the same scenario loaded 12 seconds. Basically 2 seconds slower than the xsex.

Edit: Oh here it is. Presenting the ultra-fast bottleneck-laden Directstorage® and Velocity Architecture™.

That is still not representative of XVA or DirectStorage. The State of Decay demo clearly says in the YouTube description that it does not represent gameplay optimized for XSX. All they did was drop the same game on the Xbox Series X without any optimizations, which means it's not leveraging the full potential of the architecture. It is loading faster because of the naturally faster hardware, without making use of the newer methods available in the XSX.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I think the XSX has less bottlenecks in it's I/O than a PC but compared to the PS5 it has more of them from my understanding.

It depends on if MS have added any other hardware along parts of the I/O hardware stack for some of them. Certain things like not having cache coherency engines aren't actually indicative of a bottleneck, as that type of hardware is simply something Sony required for their specific solution. The same can somewhat be said about how accesses to/from RAM betwen the I/O blocks on the two systems vary.

Still though Sony's solution is the beefier of the two in this regard. The question is moreso how will it play out in practice i.e do the paper specs really tell everything? I'd reckon they don't, but to what extent is debatable.

Maybe all Microsoft wanted to do was slap an SSD in the system along with a decompressor. There's even speculation that they wanted to go with an even slower SSD.

I'm not sure what happened but it's obvious that Microsoft didn't take the SSD had a big priority when compared to Sony.

This is the wrong way of looking at it. They obviously had SSDs in mind when designing the XSX, we can see this in the solutions they are developing to address I/O and data load/transfer from storage like BCPack, SFS, DirectStorage and more.

What a lot of people aren't realizing is that the two companies just took different approaches to many of the same I/O problems that leverage historical strengths. Sony took a hardware-focused approach and they have a history of hardware-based solutions to various problems. Since their solution is only servicing a single market (game consoles), and their own console at that, it doesn't necessarily matter if it's a scalable solution at large because there's only two other console manufacturers.

MS's solution is more hardware-agnostic out of necessity. They want a solution that can be applied and stacked upon open-market hardware solutions in the gaming space, PC space, mobile space etc, given they have devices in all of these areas (Xbox, Azure, Surface etc.). They have to be more considerate of a wider net knowing many different manufacturers develop PC products, server hardware etc.

The key importance with MS's solution is that it stacks and scales with the underlying hardware, but doesn't "get in the way" of the hardware, and given it's a very software-driven approach they can further optimize it as needed, tailoring it for specific hardware implementations, etc.

If more people realized this then we wouldn't have such a misguided need to objectively call one approach superior or inferior at the end of the day; they're both very valid approaches designed for their specific hardware and serving each manufacturer's exact market needs.

 

[itsjustJEFF]

But stronger means faster in computational terms. FLOPS is a measure of speed, it’s operations per second.

PS5 is a Wide Receiver / Xbox Series X is a Running Back
PS5 is a BMW M3 / Xbox Series X is a Mustang Shelby GT350

I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone

 

[Major_Key]

This bolded part sounds like i'm in Velocity architecture thread. So, what you said for XSX SSD is better than PS5 SSD

RT is still a really power hungry and it scales with resolution. RAM per TF is basically the same on both. I'll bet that AAA games will use more than 10 GB on XSX pretty soon after launch. And also what you described for XSX GPU, looks like it has more than 18% power advantage, like 50%. X1X GPU didn't have that kind advantage over PS4 Pro. And Matt said that graphical differences between the two will be modest

I never said that XSX SSD is better than PS5. PS5 is more faster. But do we know how it will affect in game ?

We need to know Grays on PS5. On XSX is 380 billion per/s with 52CU. Lot more room to manage RT.

Wider RAM on XSX with 320bit memory bus 560GB/s "GPU OPTIMAL" 10GB. 2,5 for OS & 3,5 for CPU & AUDIO. With Deep efficiency, costless texture thanks to BCPack, Better memory usage thanks to SFS, Texture filtering etc...

Sony has outdone MS yet again with PS5. They knew that SSDs is the most revolutionary generational step and they simply designed a marvelous APU that is praised by everyone. GPU differences is the smallest we have ever seen in any console generation and that's a FACT.

PS5 has tons of co-processors that offload tasks from CPU/GPU, XSX might have some of that but not to same degree otherwise Microsoft will be shouting that from top of their roofs.

PS5 has the way better audio chip ( to do the same in XsX you will have to take resources from CPU/GPU. You might not be able to replicate Tempest Engine if at all)

PS5 has way more capable I/O solution and more than double the bandwidth ( largest difference between the two systems)

Lets ignore Xbox strange RAM setup and simply say that XsX has faster Ram than PS5, don't forget that XsX GPU needs to feed 52CUs with data while PS5 Ram can be more than sufficient for 36CUs.

Only area where Xbox has clear advantage to me is Raytracing due to having 16 more CUs than PS5. We still needs to examine RT performance with high clocks, PS5 might surprise in this area.

So in Summary:

CPU: XSX >= PS5 (Different is so small not even worth mentioning)
GPU: XSX > PS5 (18% smallest difference ever)
I/O : PS5 >>> XSX (all I/O tasks is offloaded on PS5, universally praised system)
Ram: XsX>=PS5 ( this one is tricky because XSX weird ram setup and requirement to feed more CUs on XSX)
Audio: PS5>>>XSX (TE has never been done before, superior audio to ALL users)
SSD: PS5>>>>XSX ( more than double the BW coupled with crazy good I/O)
RT: XSX >>? PS5 ( 16 more CUs means more IE but we still don't know high clock effects in RT)

Lets not forget the most important thing for any gaming device:

The controller: PS5 >>> XSX

Looking at the overall package, its clear that PS5 is easily the more thought out and superior system. I expect $499 for both but Microsoft should be hard pressed to price match Sony otherwise their system would look less appealing giving the technical specs.

Lol...

If controller is the most important thing PS4/PS3 will be a flop.

We know nothing about audio Architecture on SX, just that SX have dedicated hardware for audio.

You all wrong buddy.

Game and price will always lead for buying a console.

 

[JTCx]

PS5 is a Wide Receiver / Xbox Series X is a Running Back
PS5 is a BMW M3 / Xbox Series X is a Mustang Shelby GT350

I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone

M3 was always the better car.

 

[Ascend]

I would expect some games assets simply loading a bit faster on PS5, while XSX would have a little more noticeable pop in the distances. Not much more than that in terms of SSD on 3rd party games. We'll see soon enough

The XSX has texture filters in hardware that are supposed to eliminate pop-ins. We don't know how good they are though.

 

[Trueblakjedi]

It is more capable, surely, but the problem is RT is scaling with resolution, and if we talking about full path RT, it's damn power hungry and bandwidth starved. Sony want to have a same quality RT like on PS5 like RT on XSX, they just need to lower resolution on PS5. RT Minecraft demo on XSX was nice, but it's Minecraft after all. And also, Minecraft demo on XSX was less complex and in fps it ran worse compared to PC version on which was ran on much more powerful setup ( RTX 2080Ti )

Again you are saying this and its wrong. The XSX was fully path traced which the 2080 ti wasnt. The 2080 also used DLSS to get out of the 20sfps. How many times does this have to be stated?

DF states that the footage in their video was encoded at 30fps, but the source was actually higher. John says that he saw a frame rate between 30-60fps with ray tracing turned on. The average, therefore, will clearly be greater than 30fps. And this was ported over in just 4 weeks by only one engineer. We also don't know if they used DirectML, which is Microsoft's DLSS equivalent.

Just stop man. geez.

 

[Thirty7ven]

So according to Matt,the PS5 has the SSD advantage and XSX is "more powerful in many ways" and "can do things PS5 can't". Key words "in many ways" is quite telling. I expected him to say something like "in some instances" That's from a well respected Sony dev.

Sounds like a pretty good trade off honestly.

Given MS's great ability at software, is it possible MS can improve the I/o speeds via software updates to improve the systems architecture? Or is the I/o more of a hardware thing? Can MS make improvements to the architecture?

Can’t or can’t do as well. Don’t eat words. Matt has said it’s a modest difference in GPU, a tiny difference in CPU and a significant difference in I/O.

He has said these are the closest these systems ever been in power. Much less of a difference than PS4 - Xbox One or Xbox X - PS4 Pro.

He has said in multi-platform the differences will be modest, one way and the other.

He’s not a Sony dev. He’s third party, he’s not the guy from twitter.

No, Microsoft can’t simply “patch” an upgrade. Much the same way Sony can’t “patch” more power.

 

[Major_Key]

Oh there is one. I'm not sure where I found the link but I think it's in one of the reddit comments. It's a link to a tweet from a guy who did exactly that.

The PC SSD on the same scenario loaded 12 seconds. Basically 2 seconds slower than the xsex.

Edit: Oh here it is. Presenting the ultra-fast bottleneck-laden Directstorage® and Velocity Architecture™.

Yeah the game not use Direct Storage,Velocity Architecture or Hardware decompression. And SOD2 is bad optimized.

Xbox One game not

Wait for games build with SX dev kit.

The Ascent
The medium
Have no loading time confirmed.

The medium : explore 2 world with no loading time.

The thing is Star citizen, game built with SSD in minds is that it have no difference between Sata SSD 500Mb/s and SSD Nvme 970 at 3,5Gb/s.

Xbox one retro games do not benefit from the velocity architecture. And that's why MS opted for homemade external SSDs, because they customized their Nvme SSD in one way or another with the velocity architecture in mind.

 

[iamvin22]

Has anyone(Digital foundry? or personally done and uploaded to Youtube) done a test analyzing how the Xbox series X SSD solution fares compared to PC-SSD solution with the game 'State of Decay' showcased in 'Microsoft's loading times tech demo that displays the difference in speed between the Xbox Series X and the Xbox One'

This demo looks so fake to me. All you have to do is look at the players hands on the right and you can tell he is not playing the demo while the game is playing. I dunno just my 2 cents but anyways during the sod demo just watch his hands and give me your opinion on it

 

[Thirty7ven]

Again you are saying this and its wrong. The XSX was fully path traced which the 2080 ti wasnt. The 2080 also used DLSS to get out of the 20sfps. How many times does this have to be stated?

This isn’t true. Holy crap.

2080Ti Minecraft RT is fully path traced. It was in its 20 FPS at 4K. At 1080p with DLSS upscaling to 4K, it was 60 FPS.

See this is the made up bullshit I’m talking about. What the hell man, I’ve called you out on this before.

 

[MasterCornholio]

If more people realized this then we wouldn't have such a misguided need to objectively call one approach superior or inferior at the end of the day; they're both very valid approaches designed for their specific hardware and serving each manufacturer's exact market needs.

Honestly the results are what matters in the end and we know that one systems I/O will be better.

Each has their strengths and weaknesses and the PS5s strength is it's SSD.

I basically came to that conclusion after reading some comments from developers and Matt from Resetera.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Hardware mainly and dedicated chips, or CPU and software, either way it costs. Sony spent lots on thism, if it was easy software why would they bother ?

Yup even stevens, I bet sony games stream high assets all the time, and MS put in lots of rays in first party stuff, or as phil alluded to recently going high frame rate gaming I saw interview recently

At least there are trade offs, I just get tired when one console has to rule them all.....Should be fun.

Just hope both MS and Sony put in lots of options next gen, some prefer 1080p and high farme rates, some like shiny things.

With MS supposedly pushing for 60fps isn't that going to limit how much RT they an actually use in their games? assuming they are pushing for the best possible visuals that they can get at 60fps in every other way.

 

[jimbojim]

I never said that XSX SSD is better than PS5. PS5 is more faster. But do we know how it will affect in game ?

We need to know Grays on PS5. On XSX is 380 billion per/s with 52CU. Lot more room to manage RT.

Wider RAM on XSX with 320bit memory bus 560GB/s "GPU OPTIMAL" 10GB. 2,5 for OS & 3,5 for CPU & AUDIO. With Deep efficiency, costless texture thanks to BCPack, Better memory usage thanks to SFS, Texture filtering etc...


Lol...

If controller is the most important thing PS4/PS3 will be a flop.

We know nothing about audio Architecture on SX, just that SX have dedicated hardware for audio.

You all wrong buddy.

Game and price will always lead for buying a console.

You didn't said that, but surely to me you have implied to it. On PS5 is 321 billion per sec with 36 CU at 2.23 GHz. Not far off. It matches 18% difference. I've mentioned that in few posts above ( #320 ). RT scales with resolution. And PS5 can match it with lower res. But what's the point of full path RT if XSX ran it in Minecraft demo at 1080/unstable 30fps. You know, it's Minecraft graphics.

He isn't wrong. RAM speed per TF is similar on both. You need to realize that if some AAA game will use more than 10GB ( and it will ) RAM speed will drop. Oh, we know enough for XSX audio, ex member Lady Berkanstel opened a few threads about it. To me looks like PS5 audio chip is a bit better.

About Velocity and other software crap in XSX....it won't mitigate XSX SSD speed in any way compared to PS5. XSX SSD is 2.4 GB/s/4.8 GB/s. Max is 6. That's it

 

[MasterCornholio]

With MS supposedly pushing for 60fps isn't that going to limit how much RT they an actually use in their games? assuming they are pushing for the best possible visuals that they can get at 60fps in every other way.

So if you double the framerate does that double the amount of Ray tracing that needs to be done?

If true then it's possible to do a lot more RT at 30FPS than 60FPS.

 

[geordiemp]

With MS supposedly pushing for 60fps isn't that going to limit how much RT they an actually use in their games? assuming they are pushing for the best possible visuals that they can get at 60fps in every other way.

Yes RT is expensive, lets see how the consoles cope. Not seen anything much to discuss other than minecraft on consoles, so I dont have a strong opinion either way.

 

[jimbojim]

This isn’t true. Holy crap.

2080Ti Minecraft RT is fully path traced. It was in its 20 FPS at 4K. At 1080p with DLSS upscaling to 4K, it was 60 FPS.

See this is the made up bullshit I’m talking about. What the hell man, I’ve called you out on this before.

Yep, upscaled to 4k. Well, it was unstable 60, though.
Also worth mentioning, PC demo version was way more complex than XSX version. If XSX had a problem with fps at 1080p in tech demo which is Minecraft with full path RT, imagine at 4k. Better to use some other lighting tech. There is no need for full path RT in every game

 

[zcaa0g]

Why is it so difficult for some to admit Sony did a fantastic job with the ssd subsystem?

Why do people like you take this so seriously? It's just a game console.

 

[eastwood333]

Can’t or can’t do as well. Don’t eat words. Matt has said it’s a modest difference in GPU, a tiny difference in CPU and a significant difference in I/O.

He has said these are the closest these systems ever been in power. Much less of a difference than PS4 - Xbox One or Xbox X - PS4 Pro.

He has said in multi-platform the differences will be modest, one way and the other.

He’s not a Sony dev. He’s third party, he’s not the guy from twitter.

No, Microsoft can’t simply “patch” an upgrade. Much the same way Sony can’t “patch” more power.

He clearly said XSX is "more powerful in MANY WAYS" and can do thing PS5 CAN"T. To me, that seems pretty noteworthy.

He even states he doesn't think 3rd party will do much with the PS5 SSD

Nearly a 2 teraflop advantage at sustained performance is no small thing.

And i'd hope its not like PS4/XB1 since PS4 is 50% faster.

 

[eastwood333]

You didn't said that, but surely to me you have implied to it. On PS5 is 321 billion per sec with 36 CU at 2.23 GHz. Not far off. It matches 18% difference. I've mentioned that in few posts above ( #320 ). RT scales with resolution. And PS5 can match it with lower res. But what's the point of full path RT if XSX ran it in Minecraft demo at 1080/unstable 30fps. You know, it's Minecraft graphics.

He isn't wrong. RAM speed per TF is similar on both. You need to realize that if some AAA game will use more than 10GB ( and it will ) RAM speed will drop. Oh, we know enough for XSX audio, ex member Lady Berkanstel opened a few threads about it. To me looks like PS5 audio chip is a bit better.

About Velocity and other software crap in XSX....it won't mitigate XSX SSD speed in any way compared to PS5. XSX SSD is 2.4 GB/s/4.8 GB/s. Max is 6. That's it

The 18% figure is assmuming PS5 will be at 10.2tf sustained

 

[jimbojim]

Why do people like you take this so seriously? It's just a game console.

Well, Discord group took it even more seriously. Beyond their limits.