I'm pretty sure reading my post addresses all this.
Miles Morales was 1080p-1440p at 60fps with RT and 1512p (Lowest resolution) - almost 2160p in 60fps mode without RT. Your prediction is way off
What does he want exactly? A fucking seminar on what assets are being loaded in and out of ram?
Miles Morales have muuuch less complicated gfx than Rachet.
Alex What's-His-Name doesn't hate SSDs. That's not where he is coming from whenever he downplays Insomniac tech.
No. The amount of geometrical detail is comparable, but the art style is just different. Ratchet just uses a more vibrant color palette and particle effects.
lol someone asked DF about Insomniac loading data in and out of VRAM on player turns. Known SSD hater, Alex, would like more information before commenting and still ended up downplaying it. lol
Timestamped:
He brings up "concerns" about the speed and latency of getting things in and out of memory even though insomniac literally confirmed Cerny's claim that you could do it on a player camera turn. Clearly, the speed and latency is no longer a concern because you can literally do it on a player camera controlled turn. He then speculates that we dont know what the benefits are. I mean the article mentions how the benefits are more detailed worlds.
For those who arent aware of Alex's crusade against the SSD and I/O of the PS5. This is him getting called out for downplaying it last year, throwing a fit, crying to mods, and getting both posters he quoted banned in the process.
We now finally have proof that the SSD and I/O combined to bring a more detailed world in Ratchet, and he wants to wait and see. Umm, how about you pick up the phone and call Insomniac? They contact studios all the time over some framedrops and have no real access to Insomniac? Even John and Richard just shrugged this off. It looks really unprofessional for them to just punt it off like that when they can just say, "hey, we need more detail on this so we are going to contact Insomniac and see if we can get that."
so ignoring statements of insomniac dev for alex is alright? i mean if a dev says that they can focus... key word: all of it's memory what's in front of you, because PS5 SSD allows that but somehow alex don't care about this and just ignores it and want to know specifics GB/s that just shows his concern.
I think the problem with Alex is that he is way too biased. He loves PC and really think that consoles can't compete, in any way at all. Of course PC is better for most part since it's way more expansive but there COULD be stuff that the console does better due to being a closed box, and he simply ignores that.
i could
lol someone asked DF about Insomniac loading data in and out of VRAM on player turns. Known SSD hater, Alex, would like more information before commenting and still ended up downplaying it. lol
Timestamped:
He brings up "concerns" about the speed and latency of getting things in and out of memory even though insomniac literally confirmed Cerny's claim that you could do it on a player camera turn. Clearly, the speed and latency is no longer a concern because you can literally do it on a player camera controlled turn. He then speculates that we dont know what the benefits are. I mean the article mentions how the benefits are more detailed worlds.
For those who arent aware of Alex's crusade against the SSD and I/O of the PS5. This is him getting called out for downplaying it last year, throwing a fit, crying to mods, and getting both posters he quoted banned in the process.
We now finally have proof that the SSD and I/O combined to bring a more detailed world in Ratchet, and he wants to wait and see. Umm, how about you pick up the phone and call Insomniac? They contact studios all the time over some framedrops and have no real access to Insomniac? Even John and Richard just shrugged this off. It looks really unprofessional for them to just punt it off like that when they can just say, "hey, we need more detail on this so we are going to contact Insomniac and see if we can get that."
I'm not going to jump into this SSD debate and Alex as it's a waste of time, however, I will address why Alex (and many other developers) think that Metro is the best looking game.I think the problem with Alex is that he is way too biased. He loves PC and really think that consoles can't compete, in any way at all. Of course PC is better for most part since it's way more expansive but there COULD be stuff that the console does better due to being a closed box, and he simply ignores that.
I enjoy his videos but every time he talks about graphics and consoles his bias really shines through. I mean, he thinks Metro Exodus was the best looking game just because of some ray traced lightning that didn't even look good (just compare it with the enhanced version). And let's be honest, there are a lot of prettier games than Metro out there
lol touche
This is true. Richard got to see the Road to PS5 reveal ahead of everyone and all he wanted to ask was about variable tflops.
I mean the guy couldn't spot raytracing on a picture where everybody here noticed it.... All that after saying the ps5 had no raytracing hardware.... After Sony already confirmed it. How much less credibility do you need ?
Not just that. In the trailer analysis (timestamped) him and Jon could not spot that the reflection was "garbled" due to the ground not being a smooth surface, so they call it "lower resolution reflection". Don't get me wrong, it looks it can be lower res, but there's also a noise map on top of the reflection
what a waste of resources that would be, it will be lower res/detail reflections cause thats the smart thing to do, why are you whining about DF pointing it out?
So what you're saying is that sometimes an elevator......... is just an elevator?
Did anyone catch NX Gamer's RE8 comparisons? The PS4 and base X1 comparison stood out the most to me. X1 looks like the switch version. Muddy, blurry, ugly. It is running at 900p same as base PS4 but everything else is downgraded to oblivion. I know Cyberpunk on X1 looked blurry but thats a next gen game that was never designed to run on base consoles. X1 shouldve been able to run a last gen 60 fps title without this many downgrades.
Timestamped:
The framerate difference is roughly around 20-40% which makes sense considering the difference in tflops between the two base consoles. But there is clearly a need for far more downgrades which means their RAM setup is likely the bottleneck here. Regardless, Just the fact that this 40% difference in tflops is causing the game to look this bad should raise some eyebrows considering the fact that we have a next gen console where the difference between it and the series x is a stark 200%. What's going to happen with late gen games?
I strongly recommend everyone watch the comparison above because as bad as the screens look, it looks even worse in motion. Simply unacceptable and yet no one is talking about it. A good 80-90% of the 49 million Xbox one owners have the base X1 or the X1S and they are getting this insanely inferior experience. This should be big news.
To be fair, I did frame it as a Series S discussion because this is a next gen tech thread after all, and I get warned for straying too far when discussing next gen graphics. Maybe a next gen graphics thread is needed where we can talk about this stuff without fear of getting thread banned? I was put on a perma thread ban warning after posting some speculation about the BF6 graphics so i am kinda baffled tbh. Are graphics not tech? How do we compare the tech in the hardware if we cant talk about the end result of these next gen tech advancements. Frankly, I am ok with a separate thread for graphics discussion if thats what the mods want.
Did anyone catch NX Gamer's RE8 comparisons? The PS4 and base X1 comparison stood out the most to me. X1 looks like the switch version. Muddy, blurry, ugly. It is running at 900p same as base PS4 but everything else is downgraded to oblivion. I know Cyberpunk on X1 looked blurry but thats a next gen game that was never designed to run on base consoles. X1 shouldve been able to run a last gen 60 fps title without this many downgrades.
Timestamped:
The framerate difference is roughly around 20-40% which makes sense considering the difference in tflops between the two base consoles. But there is clearly a need for far more downgrades which means their RAM setup is likely the bottleneck here. Regardless, Just the fact that this 40% difference in tflops is causing the game to look this bad should raise some eyebrows considering the fact that we have a next gen console where the difference between it and the series x is a stark 200%. What's going to happen with late gen games?
I strongly recommend everyone watch the comparison above because as bad as the screens look, it looks even worse in motion. Simply unacceptable and yet no one is talking about it. A good 80-90% of the 49 million Xbox one owners have the base X1 or the X1S and they are getting this insanely inferior experience. This should be big news.
Did anyone catch NX Gamer's RE8 comparisons? The PS4 and base X1 comparison stood out the most to me. X1 looks like the switch version. Muddy, blurry, ugly. It is running at 900p same as base PS4 but everything else is downgraded to oblivion. I know Cyberpunk on X1 looked blurry but thats a next gen game that was never designed to run on base consoles. X1 shouldve been able to run a last gen 60 fps title without this many downgrades.
Timestamped:
The framerate difference is roughly around 20-40% which makes sense considering the difference in tflops between the two base consoles. But there is clearly a need for far more downgrades which means their RAM setup is likely the bottleneck here. Regardless, Just the fact that this 40% difference in tflops is causing the game to look this bad should raise some eyebrows considering the fact that we have a next gen console where the difference between it and the series x is a stark 200%. What's going to happen with late gen games?
I strongly recommend everyone watch the comparison above because as bad as the screens look, it looks even worse in motion. Simply unacceptable and yet no one is talking about it. A good 80-90% of the 49 million Xbox one owners have the base X1 or the X1S and they are getting this insanely inferior experience. This should be big news.
I keep saying that things like SFS and VA aren't being utilized and people keep using cross gen titles to 'prove' the XSS has some sort of 'bottleneck'. If you want 4K gaming and more graphical bells and whistles the XSS isn't the best choice but if you are on a budget it offers fantastic value and capabilities for the price. You can't get more for less.
Why is it concern trolling? You're being a bit too sensitive.
As a huge fan of Killzone 2. A game a lot of people didn't like because of the lack of color and understandably the controls compared to Call of Duty. Also a game that probably has less color than each of the Metro titles, I'm not really that impressed.
Theoretically, isn't this what VRS does but for areas that don't need to be rendered at full resolution?You really think they are gonna render reflections on full res/detail only to then distort it to look lower res/detail?
you people are genuinely mental
MasterCornholio
Posting this here since the Ratchet thread was closed before I could submit my reply.The I/O isnt bullshit but PCs can brute force anything, even Ratchet. Both Cerny and MS talked about how the decompression engines in their I/O blocks were equivalent to something crazy like 12 zen 2 cores decompressing data. Well, you can get a 24 core Zen 3 CPU right now. Hell, you can get a 48 core threadripper.
The I/O isnt bullshit but PCs can brute force anything, even Ratchet. Both Cerny and MS talked about how the decompression engines in their I/O blocks were equivalent to something crazy like 12 zen 2 cores decompressing data. Well, you can get a 24 core Zen 3 CPU right now. Hell, you can get a 48 core threadripper.
Nvidia is also bringing decompression into their 3000 series GPUs so it really doesnt matter if PCs dont have the I/O block because their GPUs are already 2x more powerful than the PS5. yes, they will take a hit but there is more than enough power here to do the heavy lifting on the GPU.
Introducing NVIDIA RTX IO: GPU-Accelerated Storage Technology For The Next Generation of Games
Load instantaneously, experience vast worlds with endless views and rich detail, and further improve gameplay by leveraging the power of GeForce RTX 30 Series graphics cards and NVIDIA RTX IO.www.nvidia.com
Then you have extra System RAM on every single PC. The 6800xt has 16 GB of VRAM, but you could and should have at least 16 GB of system RAM on your PC. Id imagine 32GB for next gen. Devs can load half of the game in the System ram and move the levels in and out from system ram into vram as they desire without ever even looking at the ssd.
A good example of just how powerful PCs are is the 3080. It only has 10 GB of VRAM compared to the 13.5 GB available to games on the XSX and maybe the PS5. But that doesnt mean it will struggle to run games designed on the PS5 because a lot of the VRAM on the PS5 is being used for things other than rendering. Game logic, A.I, what have you. So that 10 GB wont really be a bottleneck because almost no PS5 game would be using 13.5 GB for VRAM alone.
Here is KZ Shadowfalls' VRAM usage. Only 3 of the 5GB available was used for graphics.
With the pc parts shortage the way it is and the price hikes for AIB cards ( i saw the $500 3070 going for $750 at microcenter, $700 3080 was $1,200 and the $1,500 3090 was $2,500), I really couldn't say.
