• 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.

Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD

Status
Not open for further replies.

onesvenus

Member
Thats exactly what it is.

The share price times total number of shares = cost to buy all shares = market cap.

There is no other vague "market value" for publicly traded companies. Its not like buying Zenimax, a private company, who's owners can name any price they want.
When that happens shares are priced higher than what they are on the market. Take a look at the last public traded companies being bought, none of them were bought at the share price.

I dont think its that farfetched. Didn't Enix under perform with stuff like KH3 even though it was the best selling in the series? They are a big publisher but a buy out makes sense to me.
From their last financial report:
Net sales and operating income in the Digital Entertainment segment totaled ¥203,536 million (an increase
of 48.6% from the same period of the prior fiscal year), and ¥42,204 million (an increase of 43.0% from the
same period of the prior fiscal year), respectively
They have been making a profit for some time
 

kyliethicc

Member
confused wait what GIF
Maybe they meant Henry
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
When that happens shares are priced higher than what they are on the market. Take a look at the last public traded companies being bought, none of them were bought at the share price.


From their last financial report:

They have been making a profit for some time
That doesn't say they are making profit. It says their revenue is up.

When a game like KH3 is the best selling in the series and still results in an off year, which would have been 2019 earnings, that means something is wrong

They aren't a bad publisher by any means but they are pretty small compared to even konami and EA. (Granted those numbers are from last time I checked which has been awhile.(
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
Not at all. Market Cap does not equal Market Value, meaning the sell price will be north of 10 Billion. Sony cannot afford to spend 1/3 of its cash on a single acquisition.

Sony can but 10 Billion means = 20 million consoles = 100 AAA games.

It's just not a smart investment, just like Zenimax. It's smarter to acquire proved and ambitious studios like Bluepoint, Remedy, Housemarque, etc or just inflate your current top tier studios like Naughty Dog, GG, etc.
 
Last edited:
please dont be cross gen.
SlimySnake SlimySnake every-time he senses a cross-gen title

8qls9lw.png

Ya lets wait for that robert guy to confirm these rumors lol

the famous twitter "insider"
That dude made one accurate prediction which could have easily been guesswork and he started getting a following, even though every leak since has been horse shit.
 

onesvenus

Member
That doesn't say they are making profit. It says their revenue is up.
I know, but you don't expect me to paste you the entire report, right? The Q3 2021 report, which was published just some days ago says they are making a profit, you can look for them if you want.
 
You are just conflating random laws to a situation that doesn't apply; you think nobody can make something exclusive? Buy something and make the goods exclusive to a platform? Find me one ruling where the EU indicated that when it wasn't based on a monopoly. That section is about things like price fixing, actions involving multiple companies acting together to limit markets. Buying Bethesda doesn't limit anyone's ability to sell products... that's not in any way related to this. Companies can do things including buying companies to their advantage.. that's called capitalism.

I didn't say all anti-trust laws only apply to monopolies.. we are talking about a specific scenario.. a purchase/merger.

Here's the section of TEFU that applies to what I'm talking about:


Dominating a market is not illegal.. and MS will not be dominating any markets after buying Bethesda.

Again you're missing the point. EU anti-trust law deals with two primary concerns. One is the abuse of a dominant market position, the second is any other general anti-competitive market practices or agreements.

The purchase of a multi-platform publisher relates not to the former at all (so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up). But it does raise concerns over the latter, and you can bet your ass the EU will be pouring over every detail of this deal to make sure it does not violate the EU legal definition of anti-competitive practice.

They will pretty much 100% approve the deal, but there will be stipulations around how Zenimax under MS continues to do business, such that fair market competition principles are observed.

I'm curious why so many of you think you can conclude anything so authoritatively about how this deal will go down, when it's the first of its kind in history and ya'll aren't anything close to legal experts... lol.

So as I said.. you have to be considered a near monopoly, or part of a duopoly to have behaviors like making something exclusive be illegal.

Otherwise.. we wouldn't have console exclusives at all lol

Again i'm not sure why you keep circling back to this strawman. This isn't about MS becoming a monopoly. It's about the potential for anti-competitive practice. The latter doesn't have to preclude the former. And you claim I'm conflating issues.

edit: Oh and lets not forget MS doesn't release ANYTHING exclusively lol.. they release everything on PC, and in multiple storefronts in general.
Lol... wut?

Not at all. Market Cap does not equal Market Value, meaning the sell price will be north of 10 Billion. Sony cannot afford to spend 1/3 of its cash on a single acquisition.

Name a single example of a merger or acquisition in the past 5 years where the purchasing company buys the acquisition target in cash alone?

It would be fiscally irresponsible. You buy using a combination of cash, your own company shares (hence your own market Cap is indeed relevant), debt and cash equivalents.

Do you want to bet something? I say the EU will approve the merge on March 5th

No-one here saying it won't. But there will be stipulations around how the merger will be structured. And I strongly believe the reverse triangular merger setup already mentioned is an indication of that.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
I'm curious why so many of you think you can conclude anything so authoritatively about how this deal will go down, when it's the first of its kind in history and ya'll aren't anything close to legal experts... lol.
Aren't you doing exactly the same?

But there will be stipulations around how the merger will be structured. And I strongly believe the reverse triangular merger setup already mentioned is an indication of that.
You are just assuming things. As it has been previously said, a reverse triangular merger setup is almost always done when the absorbed company has deals or different contractual obligations than the absorbing one. Not only that, it's the only way to do a merge and keep both companies alive. What's strange in this case is this being reported.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Again you're missing the point. EU anti-trust law deals with two primary concerns. One is the abuse of a dominant market position, the second is any other general anti-competitive market practices or agreements.

The purchase of a multi-platform publisher relates not to the former at all (so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up). But it does raise concerns over the latter, and you can bet your ass the EU will be pouring over every detail of this deal to make sure it does not violate the EU legal definition of anti-competitive practice.

They will pretty much 100% approve the deal, but there will be stipulations around how Zenimax under MS continues to do business, such that fair market competition principles are observed.

I'm curious why so many of you think you can conclude anything so authoritatively about how this deal will go down, when it's the first of its kind in history and ya'll aren't anything close to legal experts... lol.



Again i'm not sure why you keep circling back to this strawman. This isn't about MS becoming a monopoly. It's about the potential for anti-competitive practice. The latter doesn't have to preclude the former. And you claim I'm conflating issues.


Lol... wut?



Name a single example of a merger or acquisition in the past 5 years where the purchasing company buys the acquisition target in cash alone?

It would be fiscally irresponsible. You buy using a combination of cash, your own company shares (hence your own market Cap is indeed relevant), debt and cash equivalents.



No-one here saying it won't. But there will be stipulations around how the merger will be structured. And I strongly believe the reverse triangular merger setup already mentioned is an indication of that.
True, but I doubt very much that these stipulations will change anything significant... if MS wants to make all future content exclusive they will be able to, possibly even the back catalogue, but I doubt they would risk the bad publicity of removing all the Id content and Bethesda one out of the PSN Store for example. I lost some faith in the teeth of the EUC approach to competition when they allowed regional stores like U.K. iOS App Store vs France iOS App Store vs iOS Italy App Store, etc... with different accounts and geoblocked content.
 

Dolodolo

Member
Sony can't afford SE.
What the hell are you talking about? Sony can buy any game publisher in the world. They have $ 40 billion in cash.
There is also a merge process. Or takeover through securities. When you don’t know how huge companies work, and when you don’t know how their monetary system works, then you don’t have to bear bullshit, please
 

mitchman

Gold Member
The EU fined Microsoft due to a "suspected abuse of dominant position".
Can you help me frame Microsoft as having a dominant position in the videogame world?
EU defines a monopoly as having a 40% market share in a specific segment/market, afair. It's not completely unlikely they could get above that, perhaps with the help of this acquisition.

They were then required to offer "browser choice" options upon installation in response...

Yes, and they got fined again when they "accidentally" dropped it in a Windows 7 update.
 

onesvenus

Member
EU defines a monopoly as having a 40% market share in a specific segment/market, afair. It's not completely unlikely they could get above that, perhaps with the help of this acquisition.
If that happens, EU might act then, not before that. You cannot rule based on guesses.
Having said that, which specific segment/market are you seeing Microsoft having more than 40%? Because it will not be the consoles market anytime soon with Playstation and Nintendo selling like they are doing. Is it the videogame market excluding phones and adding the PC?
 

bitbydeath

Member
Was it ever worked out why the PS5 comes out on top over XSX in the CPU/framerate department?

I mean, I can understand the match/lead on the GPU due to the cache scrubbers and higher speeds etc.

But what’s driving the CPU? Is it just that some tasks were moved off the CPU like audio and decompression or is there some other factor involved that’s giving it the edge?
 

Shmunter

Member
Was it ever worked out why the PS5 comes out on top over XSX in the CPU/framerate department?

I mean, I can understand the match/lead on the GPU due to the cache scrubbers and higher speeds etc.

But what’s driving the CPU? Is it just that some tasks were moved off the CPU like audio and decompression or is there some other factor involved that’s giving it the edge?
Yes regarding less dependence on cpu for certain tasks on PS5.

Nxgamer in his control analysis speculates XsX stutters not present on PS5 are due to asset loads. Namely PS5 I/o is cpu free, where XsX requires cpu resources for I/o (except decompression). The load causes a cpu worker thread spike manifesting in a stutter.

However personally Control on XsX also stutter during a text overlay coming into view, seems to me like a memory stall. However, it is still possible some loading is occurring at those points.
 
Last edited:
Yes regarding less dependence on cpu for certain tasks on PS5.

Nxgamer in his control analysis speculates XsX stutters not present on PS5 are due to asset loads. Namely PS5 I/o is cpu free, where XsX requires cpu resources for I/o (except decompression). The load causes a cpu worker thread spike manifesting in a stutter.

However personally Control on XsX also stutter during a text overlay coming into view, seems to me like a memory stall. However, it is still possible some loading is occurring at those points.

The only thing that I remember Microsoft saying is that the I/O system only uses 1/10th if a CPU core. If true I can't imagine it ever affecting performance in games that much. But I could be remembering what they said wrong.
 
Or they could be twisting reality and omitting facts like, it could be under ideal circumstances, etc.

Maybe that 1/10th is only for one I/O function the CPU does?

I hate to post this hear but I believe Cerny explains quite well the steps that you have to take to pull something from the I/O.

20200329140503.jpg


The PS5 has custom hardware that handles every step of the I/O so that the CPU doesn't have to do anything. From my understanding while the XSX does have some hardware to relieve the CPU of I/O work it doesn't take care of everything.

That's all that I can think of really for any I/O related issues on the XSX.
 

mitchman

Gold Member
If that happens, EU might act then, not before that. You cannot rule based on guesses.
Having said that, which specific segment/market are you seeing Microsoft having more than 40%? Because it will not be the consoles market anytime soon with Playstation and Nintendo selling like they are doing. Is it the videogame market excluding phones and adding the PC?
They have a monopoly on desktop OS, so if they tie that monopoly into pushing competitors out of other markets, such as consoles, it might very well be an issue. Middleware (in this case, games) has been the issue with the other anti-trust cases against them all the way back to how they killed Netscape (DoJ ended that case and the surveillance in 2010). EU might define switch to be a mobile device, of which xbox and ps is not, and hence restrict it to non-mobile game consoles.
 

Elog

Member
Yes regarding less dependence on cpu for certain tasks on PS5.

Nxgamer in his control analysis speculates XsX stutters not present on PS5 are due to asset loads. Namely PS5 I/o is cpu free, where XsX requires cpu resources for I/o (except decompression). The load causes a cpu worker thread spike manifesting in a stutter.

However personally Control on XsX also stutter during a text overlay coming into view, seems to me like a memory stall. However, it is still possible some loading is occurring at those points.
What I find interesting is the broader picture of what is happening with graphics and its implications for hardware.

Currently - and over the last decade+ games have been run as single threaded executables with all graphical calculations off-loaded to the GPU. In other words, once the graphical assets have been loaded into VRAM a game performs as your single core/single thread CPU performs and your GPU as two separate islands. The rest of your computer can frankly be fairly crap and does very little do help you with gaming.

What we are seeing now is that more and more tasks in the graphical engines are performed by the CPU and not only the GPU. Especially UE5 seems to utilise the CPU almost as much as the GPU to do its work. I think we underestimate the implications of this.

The loop CPU -> CPU cache -> RAM -> VRAM -> GPU cache -> GPU -> RAM -> CPU cache -> CPU etc becomes really important. Synchronization becomes really important between your components in terms of frequencies and scheduling to avoid bottle-necks that result in stutters etc. In other words I/O. Will be very interesting to see how this plays out with the evolution of the graphical engines and how we build our computers. Another way to state this is that Cerny seems to be really on top of what will matter across this generation - I continue to find real golden nuggets in his speech 'The road to PS5' - so cool to listen to someone that have such inside knowledge about what is about to happen and have tried to design a system for the task.
 

roops67

Member
What I find interesting is the broader picture of what is happening with graphics and its implications for hardware.

Currently - and over the last decade+ games have been run as single threaded executables with all graphical calculations off-loaded to the GPU. In other words, once the graphical assets have been loaded into VRAM a game performs as your single core/single thread CPU performs and your GPU as two separate islands. The rest of your computer can frankly be fairly crap and does very little do help you with gaming.

What we are seeing now is that more and more tasks in the graphical engines are performed by the CPU and not only the GPU. Especially UE5 seems to utilise the CPU almost as much as the GPU to do its work. I think we underestimate the implications of this.

The loop CPU -> CPU cache -> RAM -> VRAM -> GPU cache -> GPU -> RAM -> CPU cache -> CPU etc becomes really important. Synchronization becomes really important between your components in terms of frequencies and scheduling to avoid bottle-necks that result in stutters etc. In other words I/O. Will be very interesting to see how this plays out with the evolution of the graphical engines and how we build our computers. Another way to state this is that Cerny seems to be really on top of what will matter across this generation - I continue to find real golden nuggets in his speech 'The road to PS5' - so cool to listen to someone that have such inside knowledge about what is about to happen and have tried to design a system for the task.
hUMA heterogenous unified memory architecture has big part to play in that, it speeds up GPU compute there's no copying of data between the two ram pools
 
Last edited:

roops67

Member
Was it ever worked out why the PS5 comes out on top over XSX in the CPU/framerate department?

I mean, I can understand the match/lead on the GPU due to the cache scrubbers and higher speeds etc.

But what’s driving the CPU? Is it just that some tasks were moved off the CPU like audio and decompression or is there some other factor involved that’s giving it the edge?

Yes regarding less dependence on cpu for certain tasks on PS5.

Nxgamer in his control analysis speculates XsX stutters not present on PS5 are due to asset loads. Namely PS5 I/o is cpu free, where XsX requires cpu resources for I/o (except decompression). The load causes a cpu worker thread spike manifesting in a stutter.

However personally Control on XsX also stutter during a text overlay coming into view, seems to me like a memory stall. However, it is still possible some loading is occurring at those points.
Had mentioned in the past there seems to be a limit to how much XSX can do in parallel GPU and CPU wise. The locked clocks don't do the hardware any favours, means it will hit it's power and thermal limits 'hard' when trying to do too much consecutively and has no contingency to get around it except defer work until it's less busy
 

Lysandros

Member
Maybe that 1/10th is only for one I/O function the CPU does?

I hate to post this hear but I believe Cerny explains quite well the steps that you have to take to pull something from the I/O.

20200329140503.jpg


The PS5 has custom hardware that handles every step of the I/O so that the CPU doesn't have to do anything. From my understanding while the XSX does have some hardware to relieve the CPU of I/O work it doesn't take care of everything.

That's all that I can think of really for any I/O related issues on the XSX.
Good post. Additionally unified L3 cache for the CPU is still a serious possibilty since Matt Hargett, the chief software engineer of PS5 hinted at 'something similar' more than once.
 

Elog

Member
Had mentioned in the past there seems to be a limit to how much XSX can do in parallel GPU and CPU wise. The locked clocks don't do the hardware any favours, means it will hit it's power and thermal limits 'hard' when trying to do too much consecutively and has no contingency to get around it except defer work until it's less busy.
This is an under appreciated aspect of variable clock speeds.

If the GPU and CPU ends up out of synchronisation it results in back-flow into the caches - and this in a console environment with limited cache budget - when that happens it does not only mess up the moment but also creates performance problems downstream of the bottle-neck event.

Variable clock speeds greatly help with keeping the GPU and CPU in synch to avoid exactly this. That angle has rarely been discussed on this forum - thanks for bringing it up!
 
Good post. Additionally unified L3 cache for the CPU is still a serious possibilty since Matt Hargett, the chief software engineer of PS5 hinted at 'something similar' more than once.

It's pretty unfortunate that we don't have a die shot yet because that would definitely clear that up. I also read that DX might use up a little more CPU than what the PS5 API does. I've seen people say that this is a side effect of having such good BC.

Whenever we see the XSX fall behind the PS5 its fair to question why because it's marketed as being the superior system. Controls fotomode proves that it isn't because of the GPU. The only thing left is the I/O, ram, APIs and CPU. On those I've read many theories on why the XSX performance can fall behind the PS5 at certain moments.
 

Lysandros

Member
It's pretty unfortunate that we don't have a die shot yet because that would definitely clear that up. I also read that DX might use up a little more CPU than what the PS5 API does. I've seen people say that this is a side effect of having such good BC.

Whenever we see the XSX fall behind the PS5 its fair to question why because it's marketed as being the superior system. Controls fotomode proves that it isn't because of the GPU. The only thing left is the I/O, ram, APIs and CPU. On those I've read many theories on why the XSX performance can fall behind the PS5 at certain moments.
I agree for the first paragraph. For the bolded part of the second, are you saying that in a general sense or specific to Control? Because contrary to DF's wishes one game's/engine's specific behaviour in a RT enabled photo mode is very far from being enough proof for it.
 
Good post. Additionally unified L3 cache for the CPU is still a serious possibilty since Matt Hargett, the chief software engineer of PS5 hinted at 'something similar' more than once.
I'm pretty sure the unified L3 cache is all but confirmed, RGT has been saying it for a year now and more recently LeviathanGamer2 (hardware engineer) also stated it's very likely the PS5 has it given the amazing CPU performance and more interestingly the dimensions of the PS5 APU and the way it's oriented.
 

Riky

$MSFT
It's pretty unfortunate that we don't have a die shot yet because that would definitely clear that up. I also read that DX might use up a little more CPU than what the PS5 API does. I've seen people say that this is a side effect of having such good BC.

Whenever we see the XSX fall behind the PS5 its fair to question why because it's marketed as being the superior system. Controls fotomode proves that it isn't because of the GPU. The only thing left is the I/O, ram, APIs and CPU. On those I've read many theories on why the XSX performance can fall behind the PS5 at certain moments.

Or it's none of those things and just optimization issues, as shown by Dirt 5 with the 120hz settings bug, once people accepted it was a bug then people tried pretending that performance would go down when the proper settings were restored, what actually happened is the opposite, performance went up.

Nearly all the games we've seen so far are Pro and X1X versions adjusted for next gen, look at the GPU and memory setups of the mid gen refresh consoles then compare those with the next gen consoles, it's obvious one is going to need more work than the other.
It's really that simple.
 
Last edited:
I agree for the first paragraph. For the bolded part of the second, are you saying that in a general sense or specific to Control? Because contrary to DF's wishes one game's/engine's specific behaviour in a RT enabled photo mode is very far from being enough proof for it.

Im just saying that Controls fotomode benchmark proves that the GPU isn't what's stopping the XSX from beating the PS5. In that situation if a game is compute bound it will have an advantage on the XSX. Just saying because of other factors the games are not vastly superior on the XSX.

I don't know if I'm making any sense.
 
Last edited:
Or it's none of those things and just optimization issues, as shown by Dirt 5 with the 120hz settings bug, once people accepted it was a bug then people tried pretending that performance would go down when the proper settings were restored, what actually happened is the opposite, performance went up.

Nearly all the games we've seen so far are Pro and X1X versions adjusted for next gen, look at the GPU and memory setups of the mid gen refresh consoles then compare those with the next gen consoles, it's obvious one is going to need more work than the other.
It's really that simple.

But the thing is the PS5 isn't maxed out yet like your suggesting. There's still plenty of time for developers to get used to the hardware. Besides it's not like the PS5 doesn't have some difficult components to work with inside it. Saying that we have to wait 5 years for one system to be vastly superior than the other is just silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom