Teh Chosen Juan
Member
I should say I'll be getting both systems and have both this gen as well. So no fanning on my side. I just know right now, I play majority on XBX simply because it's giving me the better visual experience. i.e. Division 2.
PS5 and Xbox Series X GPU TFLOPs Difference “Probably” Won’t Matter in the Long Run – Hellpoint Developer
- Thread starter Hideous Snake
- Start date
I should say I'll be getting both systems and have both this gen as well. So no fanning on my side. I just know right now, I play majority on XBX simply because it's giving me the better visual experience. i.e. Division 2.
Is that a response to me? or another post
Last edited:
To whoever keep saying that SSDs will only give you faster load times
well yes I did say that, even tho I know it has other benefits, but thats the only major factor of diference I can see the PS5 SSD having against xbox
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
If a game is data driving PS5 will have a big advantage.
well yeah that what I said basicly lol
Last edited:
Fun Fanboy
Banned
Like the Xbox!
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
So what exactly would it require for the PS5's SSD to be a big advantage over XsX's? 300gb of unique UHD textures alone? Even in that scenario can't the XsX still fill the entire RAM pool very quickly?
phil_t98
#SonyToo
am curious to this, case you name a data driving game currently? not trolling just curious
Romulus
Member
Its interesting that the less powerful system has such a clear cut advantage like this.
Last edited:
They would be bottle-necked by harddrives so only a fool would have released a game that depended on fast data streaming before the new consoles was released without harddrives.
Last edited:
it can be an advantage but a little one anyway I doubt we will see something in it that the xbox wont be able to do.
Its the weakest but doesn't mean its below its rival in every single aspect.
Games that use data streaming to go beyond the limits of the physical RAM size which will be most next gen games because the physical RAM size is one of the smallest upgrades between this generation & next generation.
Romulus
Member
We don't know. Developers on both sides say the SSD is huge for this coming generation. But one of them is alot faster.
Last edited:
Leyasu
Banned
What else is it going to give?
Leyasu
Banned
What sort of game? What can people expect?
Everyone keeps talking about the SSD like it is going to change the world, so what is it going to change exactly?
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Not only that but they say those changes will be PS5 exclusive as if the XSX doesn't also have a fast SSD, just not as fast as the PS5. There's no evidence pointing to PS5 doing anything substantial that the XSX can't do tech wise besides maybe sending your ear pics off for Cerny to masturbate to.
Who said it would be PS5 exclusive?
Xbox devs have been talking about the SSD just as much as anyone
phil_t98
#SonyToo
But what games I mean? I mean this gen, what games were data hungry that got bottlenecked? Just want examples
Any type of game can benefit from having better memory management & getting more data into every single frame of game play.
With a slow harddrive devs would have to load up everything that is needed into the RAM when the level load up then slowly load up what might be needed for the next section of game play in the background while you're playing . but with the fast SSDs devs can fill that RAM up with just what you need for the frames as they are happening.
DragonNCM
Member
I think that 2.7 TF difference will not play a huge part in 4K gaming experience , bot consoles will do fine .
ZywyPL
Banned
I asked similar question about a month ago, for any examples of supposedly game-changing designs, new, never seen before gameplay features etc., still no concrete reply, instead the usual PSSD5 warriors just keep spamming their empty buzzwords all over the threads. Shit's funny as hell actually. Whatever drives their boat I guess.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
The next gen spec thread is loaded with that stuff. I rarely check there because it seems to have become a Sony circle jerk but I saw it again last time I checked the most recent page last night
Leyasu
Banned
Yes load times better with more details. Ok what is it going to change, and what is it going to do things that nothing else is capable of?
Indeed. "it's a game changer" whilst not knowing what it is going to change. Lol
Leyasu
Banned
It's getting boringDevs make games to the specs that they are giving & make choices around them specs. most games for the last generation are made to stay within the limits of around 6GB of VRAM so that they will be playable on more platforms.
For one games can have datasets larger than 16GBs so a dev can use a high quality 3D scan of a city in their game .
Last edited:
itsjustJEFF
Member
Oh I think it was a big deal back when the One/PS4 was revealed, it was 1.84 vs 1.4, theoretically speaking it's a huge difference.. in practice it all turned out fine in the end, One had some great looking games and so did the PS4. That's probably why it's being addressed.
Darius87
Member
so much abstract pr talk with no real figures i only know that data from 100GB can be accessed very fast how fast? faster then 4.8gb/s? why not let us know then? why not give hard numbers and explain in more detail like sony did?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Is this true? I remember Splinter Cell looking very different on the XBOX and PS2...
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
People focus too much on the texture side of things. Animation will be greatly impacted by the SSD, for example.
itsjustJEFF
Member
Because after the Cerny talk my head exploded LOL But I get where you're coming from. I like to know the numbers and the way things work, for curiosities sake. There's a chance they will dive deeper into that but could still be working on messaging.
Romulus
Member
The xbox version looked nearly a generation ahead of gamecube and ps2. Not only that, Double Agent is about as big a difference as this. There are lots of other examples too, some games ran at 720p natively on xbox ported from gamecube/ps2 also. Which is insane for the era. It had a massive raw power advantage plus unique GPU features.
Also, the most advanced games of that generation weren't even attempted on ps2 and GC like Doom 3, Riddick, Half Life 2.
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
The games designed around HDD are already too big to be filled with anything interesting/worth spending time on, no dev team has time, ideas and resources to create content that would fill those worlds. And the best part? They make those huge worlds, only to slap fast travel at the end, so the players can skip boring walking around those huge but empty worlds.
It all comes down to the design choice first and foremost, PS360 games made with HDD and just half a gig of RAM were arguably way more interesting and engaging than most games of this boring open-world generation. If the trend continues thanks to SSD and 16GB RAM I feel only trophy whores will be able to actually finish the games before they'll bore them to death.
Yes - the delta was 'actually' large back then (unlike the last 3 times people argued about it - including this current coming generation). But 90% of 3rd party software still ran and looked really similar. And even with all that - there were some PS2 versions that outperformed XB ones.
If they did FFXI thing and 'require' a HDD, and the team had a lot of time (not a port) you could make decent versions of those games on PS2.
Memory (or rather lack of) was by far the biggest problem there though.
It's not about size, but density.
Ability to stream in better assets closer to the camera.
With HDD you can't stream any assets "just in time" the whole scene must fit in RAM, even pretty far objects must have all the detailed textures/maps in RAM because HDD cannot stream it in time when you will come closer.
With SSD you can essentially stream in all the details around the camera, and in most cases even not full 360, as you can stream-in stuff while player turns the camera.
Last edited:
bhunachicken
Member
(deleted)
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
A multiplatform developer I quoted a while back talked about that. They did "quick and dirty" ports to Xbox because Ps2 was usually the leading platform for development, which is a huge advantage in itself, so they pushed the strengths of that console. Usually a 480i to480p on Xbox and leave it. But he said if they spent any time at all on the Xbox hardware it would run circles around the others according to him, but they usually didn't have time with constraints. So yeah, once in a while there were games pushed on ps2 unique architecture that they did not spend time for Xbox. Very rare though, and you could immediatley tell when a developer was not constrained by time because the Xbox port could come out with a massive advantage, almost a full generation ahead. That made sense to me seeing the games.
Last edited:
LeVictorien
Banned
Hmm... one thing that comes to mind is that there's a limit to what you can see because of view distance and view angle. What would be the point of rendering a megascan of a city if you're not going to see it in it's totality. In that frame, is PS5 getting any advantage to XSX streaming wise? Also when we see the Spiderman demo, no one is going to play at that speed so again, is this really an advantage? I think that's why people ask what kind of game change is it supposed to bring that the other wouldn't be able to?
ZywyPL
Banned
They can always cut down the draw distance and display more objects up front, but that's the problem, there are no assets to display, ND artists aren't doing all those overhours because they are bored, they are indeed crafting those high quality assets for their games, that's why SMS needs entire generation to release a single game, and so on, that's just how much time and manpower it takes, and this won't change in the upcoming generation no matter how powerful the consoles will be, if anything it's the other way around.
Last edited:
But the fact is that you see heavily optimized/downsampled assets (artists work with high-res stuff in the pipeline) mainly because shit doesn't fit in RAM.
See FF7R fiasco. There are tons of textures there that look blurry as hell only because there is no RAM or HDD speed to load them.
And just a reminder: sampling blurry shit or actual high-res texture has the same performance.
Last edited:
Well it's a good thing that they can also make small worlds with higher levels of detail & still have large datasets
Why are people so caught up on it doing something that Xbox SX can't do?
It's not about doing something the other console can't do but the fact that it can stream data 2X faster will mean that some games that use streaming will get a better result from having the faster I/O.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
If one car is racing at 200 mph and the other car at 200 mph but both cars only need travel 25 feet, does it really matter in the long run?
Thirty7ven
Banned
Guys come on, is the pitch really that Sony are run by a bunch of morons who went through all the trouble of having that IO speed for nothing?
Somehow MS landed on the perfect number. Incredible, the geniuses.
25 fest? Try an inch. SSD's were a mistake. Or maybe games aren't just a mile race, they are Le Mans.
Somehow MS landed on the perfect number. Incredible, the geniuses.
25 fest? Try an inch. SSD's were a mistake. Or maybe games aren't just a mile race, they are Le Mans.
Last edited:
Persian buttercup
Member
Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD
Do you think EA cares more about "Technology" than money? No? How about Activision? Bethesda? Take 2? Rockstar? No, they don't, all they care about is money. Don't get me wrong, of course they will make games for next gen too, but until that install base is not sizable enough, they will still be...