DynamiteCop!
Banned
This guy has to be trolling, you can't make this shit up...Because you can’t and won’t admit you are wrong.
You could create the very first wiki article since none currently exists.
-
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.
The PlayStation 5 GPU Will Be Supported By Better Hardware Solutions, In Depth Analysis Suggests
- Thread starter sonomamashine
- Start date
bitbydeath
Member
Hardware is infinite, bottlenecks are what occur within hardware. As mentioned before you could always get newer hardware for more power but not necessarily reduce bottlenecks. They are two different things.
bitbydeath
Member
bitbydeath
"A bottleneck occurs when the capacity of an application or a computer system is limited by a single component"
I guess the heatsink isn't a component now.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
What’s been passed to that component?
Hint: It’s not another component.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
DynamiteCop!
Banned
Here's a great problem for you to solve.
If I coupled a 2080 Ti with my 2600k vs a 3800X, what would be the difference and why?
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Better example.
I've got 2 computers with 3700X processors.
One has a cooler, the other doesn't.
Which processor performs better?
DynamiteCop!
Banned
The one with the cooler because it can boost more often as a result of less thermal throttling.
Dude, you must spend too much time in the PS5 speculation thread lmfao. You have no clue what you're talking aboutBecause you can’t and won’t admit you are wrong.
You could create the very first wiki article since none currently exists.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
This is why I appreciate my long standing history in the PC space, the amount of knowledge garnered first hand is irreplaceable. These console guys think they can just watch some video, hear a few technical terms or buzzwords and then they're off to the races.
They don't actually understand what they're trying to convey and why it's wrong.
rnlval
Member
You're assuming NVIDIA is just stupid as AMD's RTG group when NVIDIA's TU104 has scaled up polymorph and rasterization engines when compared to TU106.
TU102 = 6 GPCs with 96 ROPS
TU104 = 6 GPCs with 64 ROPS
TU106 = 3 GPCs with 64 ROPS
NVIDIA has adjusted geometry, rasterization and ROPS hardware relative to TFLOPS power scale. The bottleneck's severity is dependant on the hardware's design.
AMD promises scalability with NAVI.
Last edited:
martino
Member
so sad, i would give 100-150 for it.
Last edited:
geordiemp
Member
From Resetera, a person who has written optimisation tools for game engines they say anyway as their profession, and who knows but posters such as NX gamer / DF / other tech posters alway agree with respect on every post and ask questions of....
So better than pople making up shit is way i see it, still its just an estimate, like the 48 estimate on usage will also depend on the game code and the amount of code in the > 10 GB, and other tuning and bottleneck removal.
BUt its a better estimate than fanboys procaiming silly numbers each side and puts bandwidth equal vs TF power rating -
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Cause 16 isn't better than 10...
Naaah
bitbydeath
Member
You're assuming NVIDIA is just stupid as AMD's RTG group when NVIDIA's TU104 has scaled up polymorph and rasterization engines when compared to TU106.
TU102 = 6 GPCs with 96 ROPS
TU104 = 6 GPCs with 64 ROPS
TU106 = 3 GPCs with 64 ROPS
NVIDIA has adjusted geometry, rasterization and ROPS hardware relative to TFLOPS power scale. The bottleneck's severity is dependant on the hardware's design.
AMD promises scalability with NAVI.
I know but the point is that bottlenecks are inherit of the design. Hardware can cause bottlenecks but hardware isn’t bottlenecks. Data is what gets bottlenecked.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
There's a reason the neck of a bottle is called the neck, and there's a reason people refer to data stalling relative to hardware a bottleneck.
The data is the liquid to be poured out, the hardware is the neck of the bottle which slows the flow of liquid through it as it narrows. The bottleneck isn't the liquid (data), it's the neck of the bottle (hardware).
Trainsmove
Banned
This is not right at all. This is the same architect that put the ESRAM in the xbox1. That ESRam was faster than PS4s DDR5.(218GB/s to PS4s 176GB/s )
With it own controller. The problem was that it was way too small. Here XSX is faster and wider.
With it own controller. The problem was that it was way too small. Here XSX is faster and wider.
Shmunter
Member
Facts
- Console design blueprint : guaranteed fixed performance, aka what makes a console
- Gpu/cpu everywhere already dynamically fluctuate their load, as seen by fan speeds
- Sony let’s lower power when no need for load there, and put it elsewhere
Sony: “we have a fixed power budget, power can be distributed to where it’s needed.
Slow learner : “duh, this sounds like when my phone gets hot and runs games slow, duh, I like butterflies”
- Console design blueprint : guaranteed fixed performance, aka what makes a console
- Gpu/cpu everywhere already dynamically fluctuate their load, as seen by fan speeds
- Sony let’s lower power when no need for load there, and put it elsewhere
Sony: “we have a fixed power budget, power can be distributed to where it’s needed.
Slow learner : “duh, this sounds like when my phone gets hot and runs games slow, duh, I like butterflies”
bhunachicken
Member
I'm looking forward to the CPU/GPU power balancing. I can imagine it'll go something like this during a game:
GPU (98%) - Dude, help! I'm almost maxed out!
CPU (34%) - Hey man, take some of my power.
GPU (67%) - Awesome, thanks!
Later:
CPU (97%) - Gah! Now I'm getting close to MY limit!
GPU (58%) - Quick! Take some of my power.
CPU (77%) - Phew, that was a close one.
Now just imagine that happening several times a second
GPU (98%) - Dude, help! I'm almost maxed out!
CPU (34%) - Hey man, take some of my power.
GPU (67%) - Awesome, thanks!
Later:
CPU (97%) - Gah! Now I'm getting close to MY limit!
GPU (58%) - Quick! Take some of my power.
CPU (77%) - Phew, that was a close one.
Now just imagine that happening several times a second
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Yes, this is true.
What you need to understand is that Cerny's talk is a marketing talk and he is explaining what they tried to do to avoid bottlenecks. But that is nothing special for PS5, Microsoft has invested a lot of work into avoiding bottlenecks as well and so did both for PS4 and Xbox One or, previously, for Xbox 360 and PS3. Of course it is possible that Sony's team did a better job at avoiding bottlenecks than Microsoft did, but that is impossible to say now and in particular, Cerny's talk is a terrible way to make that call. Since Xbox SX is stronger in every regard except memory bandwidth for the final few GBs of RAM and IO to SSD, PS5 can only be expected to yield better results, if memory is the expected bottleneck.
Trainsmove
Banned
The GPU is not even in the same class as XSX, I say this do to its weak Internal system BUS of 256bits. CPU draw calls too the GPU will be Bottlenecked and even if The ssd used it's even slower. That just one thing, Collision detection, Particle generation, and many other tasks will be Affected by this bus.I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but a console isn't "ONLY" about the GPU's TF power.
Again, I apologize that the PS5 isn't as weak as you want it to be. The GPU comparison alone will make the PS5 to XSX closer than the XBO was to the PS4. If you need me to buy you some tissues, PM me your address and I'll have Amazon ship some to you in a week.
Trainsmove
Banned
Don't forget sony is putting the cpu/os in SSD that's much slower.
TBiddy
Member
I'm looking forward to the CPU/GPU power balancing. I can imagine it'll go something like this during a game:
GPU (98%) - Dude, help! I'm almost maxed out!
CPU (34%) - Hey man, take some of my power.
GPU (67%) - Awesome, thanks!
Later:
CPU (97%) - Gah! Now I'm getting close to MY limit!
GPU (58%) - Quick! Take some of my power.
CPU (77%) - Phew, that was a close one.
Now just imagine that happening several times a second
That sounds reasonable. I don't think it will be noticable to end users. As much flack as the PS5 reveal got, I very much doubt Cerny would create a solution that has an actual impact in the presented results.
Was that ever confirmed?
rnlval
Member
1. Hardware is useless without design.
2. Poorly designed hardware has a higher bottleneck's severity.
I have Core i7-7820X at 4.5Ghz with quad-channel DDR4-3200 (104 GB/s) memory bandwidth and I don't get two times the frame rates when compared to Core i9-9900K at 5Ghz with quad-channel DDR4-3600 (57.6 GB/s). I obtain higher frame rates at 4K resolution with GPU upgrades.
Last edited:
SaucyJack
Member
Alternatively, genuine excitement over PS5's design decisions and what possibilities they might enable is being dismissed as a coping mechanism by those that think they've won and aren't getting the reaction they wanted.
I'm just not interested in the Tflop fight, it's Wladimir Klitschko vs Tyson Fury level boring. It's a points decision and by the time you get to the end you wished you hadn't wasted your time watching it.
A difference in Tflops that is less than half that of the current generation is certainly not bothering me one way or the other. I thought that the gap would be narrower than last gen and it is. Current gen has showed us that for the majority of multi-platform games the devs will not put in the extra optimisation effort to get the most from PS4 over XBO or OneX over Pro and therefore both platforms end up with broadly similar results. I see no reason why that won't continue to be the case next gen.
What are the extra 18% flops going to give you, tangibly? A little bit less use of VRS? A little bit less checkerboarding? A couple of frames per second or drops below 60 a percent or two less often? Multi-platform games are going to look and play great on both platforms.
Like it or not, the SSD is going to be the thing that transforms this gen versus last (and for the Xbox too) and people should be excited about it. It can impact game design not just pixels. If what Cerny says about SSD and I/O on PS5 is true then it also offers possibilities that neither Xbox nor PC can match, I'm genuinely excited about what Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Guerrilla et al can do with that.
I'm also genuinely excited about what Developers like Obsidian, Ninja Theory and inXile can do with Microsoft budget, infrastructure and support behind them.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
That "18%" (minimum btw) translates to a PlayStation 4 and a half of GPU compute on top of the PlayStation 5's GPU. That's something just throwing out percentages doesn't really convey very well. Another thing being grossly overlooked is the uptick in RT hardware, there's 44% more of it on the Series X die and it also has a considerably wider bus. It will undoubtedly have higher pixel and texel fill rates, more TMU's, and a higher ROP count.
It's not just teraflops, Microsoft's GPU goes places which the PlayStation 5's cannot follow.
bitbydeath
Member
You may be right. I was just comparing that talk with what developers have been saying. Once the comparisons hit we’ll know for sure.
Dlacy13g
Member
The best magicians understand how important distraction and slight of hand are to the craft. Cerny spent a lot of time telling us about a number of shiny objects over here and over there that were made even more impressive by his lengthy lecture trying to emphasize their importance over the raw numbers we all saw. It was an attempt at a modern day Jedi Mind Trick and clearly worked on many.
SaucyJack
Member
Notwithstanding the asinine comparison, it's also incorrect. 18% Tflop advantage will indeed be present in TMUs and Shaders. But ROPs/Rasterization has a clock speed impact so PS5 has a 22% advantage there (64 *@ 1.825 vs 64 @ 2.23).
The "but you don't understand it's really more than 18%" argument is a just as boring "secret sauce" argument as anything else.
Shmunter
Member
Except we’re talking about an APU, combined heat on the one chip and a cooling solution designed for a know power ceiling (heat). Some tolerance to accomodate locations ambient conditions notwithstanding.I'm looking forward to the CPU/GPU power balancing. I can imagine it'll go something like this during a game:
GPU (98%) - Dude, help! I'm almost maxed out!
CPU (34%) - Hey man, take some of my power.
GPU (67%) - Awesome, thanks!
Later:
CPU (97%) - Gah! Now I'm getting close to MY limit!
GPU (58%) - Quick! Take some of my power.
CPU (77%) - Phew, that was a close one.
Now just imagine that happening several times a second
This ties back to Cerney mentioning 2.23ghz max being limited by integrity (electrons jumping) not heat. Obviously this means they would have pushed for even further flexibility in clocks within the allocated power e.g. 3ghz GPU and greater power reduction on CPU if it were possible. A deeper see-saw to give devs for their specific project more where they need it and less where they don’t.
Edit:yes your post makes sense.
Last edited:
Might have to keep digging that hole for yourself if your view that the boost frequency on the cpu and gpu were a last minute panic by Sony.
What happens if developers start coming out and say that the gpu and cpu boosts were already in the ps5 spec sheets when they were sent them by Sony maybe a year ago, or longer.
Or are they all going to be liars too!
DynamiteCop!
Banned
First off my assertions are completely accurate, and 18% is the minimum because the PlayStation 5 clocks downwardly. You charlatans seem to really grasp to that 10.28 figure like it's the result of fixed frequency. You just run with it like it's business as usual, like you're talking to people who don't understand that's a peak boost clock which goes down.
Secondly the Series X will undoubtedly have more ROPs, the likely scenario is 72 or 80 vs. 64. Microsoft is running a GPU of considerably more size at conservative speeds, a comparative retail unit would undoubtedly be running around 2Ghz and be more in the upper range of the stack. 72 to 80 ROPs makes much more sense for their system than 64 does. Sony's configuration is of a smaller GPU that would also be in the neighborhood of 2Ghz but fall more into the middle and given the workload capability 64 would be peak to avoid bottlenecking on output.
More TMU's is also a given. Yes the PS5 has a 22% higher frequency, and that will increase certain figures but you're expecting magic that still will not overcome the physical hardware deficit. Microsoft's system has 44% more shader cores, it has 16 more CU's. Even with Sony's uplift on clocks the sheer amount of hardware will still be pushing both pixel and texture fill rates well beyond Sony's system. Sony's uplift in frequency will help them in these regards but it still leaves them well behind.
Another factor which most are not accounting for is the difference in RT hardware on the die, like the shader cores, and CU's there will be 44% more hardware there. The implication of this is even worse for Sony's GPU because not only will their raster rendering capabilities be lower, they will not be able to effectively run RT to the same degree. Microsoft's huge advantage in this department is given the raster compute surplus they can push RT harder and still maintain stable overall rendering performance which would cripple Sony's system.
Sony got outgunned, that's all there is to it.
Last edited:
Johnny Silver
Banned
I've been thinking about the CPU and GPU clocks of the PS5.
I assume Sony would try to avoid as much as possible entering in the exponential phase of voltage in relation to clocks, and that the main two limitation the PS5 faces is the power budget and thermal dissipation.
We know that zen and zen 2 voltage requirements are flat all the way until 3 or 3.2Ghz. Then we have a linear increase in voltage with a linear increase in clocks (we are in the linear phase). Then past 3.7 we enter the exponential phase between voltage requirements for just slight increases in clocks.
So the CPU should still be in the linear phase at 3.5Ghz, I don't think we will see excessive power requirements from the CPU even at full load, thus if we analyse this in isolation, the CPU by itself won't be a problem.
Example:
The GPU on the other hand I don't know. With this adjustment in clock for the GPU, I don't know if the relation between voltage requirements and clocks may be at the very threshold of the exponential phase or even already slightly within it.
Example:
If so, then the power restrictions will be expressed in the GPU mainly. The good news is that if a down clock if needed because of power budget limitations or thermal throttling, because the GPU is in the exponential phase, it means that all that's needed to substantially decrease the power requirements and the heat dissipated would be a slight decrease in clocks. Hence, just like Cerny said, all that it would take is a few % drops in clocks, maybe the GPU would hit 9.8 or 10Tlops instead of 10.3Tflop.
The exponential phase between voltage and clocks works both ways, if you want to reduce power draw and thermals then only little is needed. This goes in contrast with what some have expressed before in the threat about at the slightest restriction the GPU would drop to 9.2Tflop and would stay in that number for most of the time. This is an unrealistic analysis.
I assume Sony would try to avoid as much as possible entering in the exponential phase of voltage in relation to clocks, and that the main two limitation the PS5 faces is the power budget and thermal dissipation.
We know that zen and zen 2 voltage requirements are flat all the way until 3 or 3.2Ghz. Then we have a linear increase in voltage with a linear increase in clocks (we are in the linear phase). Then past 3.7 we enter the exponential phase between voltage requirements for just slight increases in clocks.
So the CPU should still be in the linear phase at 3.5Ghz, I don't think we will see excessive power requirements from the CPU even at full load, thus if we analyse this in isolation, the CPU by itself won't be a problem.
Example:
The GPU on the other hand I don't know. With this adjustment in clock for the GPU, I don't know if the relation between voltage requirements and clocks may be at the very threshold of the exponential phase or even already slightly within it.
Example:
If so, then the power restrictions will be expressed in the GPU mainly. The good news is that if a down clock if needed because of power budget limitations or thermal throttling, because the GPU is in the exponential phase, it means that all that's needed to substantially decrease the power requirements and the heat dissipated would be a slight decrease in clocks. Hence, just like Cerny said, all that it would take is a few % drops in clocks, maybe the GPU would hit 9.8 or 10Tlops instead of 10.3Tflop.
The exponential phase between voltage and clocks works both ways, if you want to reduce power draw and thermals then only little is needed. This goes in contrast with what some have expressed before in the threat about at the slightest restriction the GPU would drop to 9.2Tflop and would stay in that number for most of the time. This is an unrealistic analysis.
Last edited:
SaucyJack
Member
So I refer you back to the post of mine you originally quoted. Try reading it again and try to comprehend it this time.
No one is disputing that the XSX GPU is 18% stronger than the PS5 GPU (and stop with the downclock stuff, you're embarrassing yourself), but I clearly don't care and have explained why. And on the ROPs, just no. 80 ROPs would mean 5 raster engines which doesn't match with 56 shader cluster or any shader cluster count. 64 ROPs, on both consoles, is consistent with AMD architecture.
But please stop engaging me on this. I JUST DON'T CARE.
Only thing I want to see now is GAMES
Shmunter
Member
Careful, he’ll put you on ignore because you touched him in the wrong spot. And then you’ll learn, then you’ll learn! Lol
Limited brains cannot take in high concepts, it’s like trying to teach a dog to drive a car. It’s just not going to happen. Walk away bro.
In the end Sony is to blame. Promoting a tech talk as a reveal. It was not aimed at regular people and only confused them to no end. The laymen responds to a simple digestible package; a bigger number is better than a smaller one. No amount of nuance will ever register. And that’s the sum and substance off it.
Last edited:
SaucyJack
Member
Last edited:
DynamiteCop!
Banned
I'm embarrassing myself by highlighting the fact that the PlayStation 5's GPU is variable and downclocks? You're embarrassing period for even asserting otherwise, that 18% is minimum compute surplus, minimum, MINIMUM.
As far as ROPs are concerned this isn't the early 2000's, ROPs don't scale in synchronicity any longer because it creates limitations in peak throughput. It's like going back in time and having to explain shit to a bunch of children, stay in your lane kiddo.
Last edited:
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
You do know that we have the leaked specs from a couple of months ago which are almost exactly correct, and from a third party source, right?Might have to keep digging that hole for yourself if your view that the boost frequency on the cpu and gpu were a last minute panic by Sony.
What happens if developers start coming out and say that the gpu and cpu boosts were already in the ps5 spec sheets when they were sent them by Sony maybe a year ago, or longer.
Or are they all going to be liars too!
This is correct but also incorrect. Yes, xbox one and PS4 had already enough ROPs to be bandwidth limited. But at the same time, More ROPs can work in parallel to get the result in a shorter amount of time. Time that can be used for the next rendering steps in this tiny 16ms window (for 60fps) a frame has.
Same is true for almost every other hardware-unit in a GPU. More is better and more energyefficient at lower frequencies (vs higher frequencies to reach the same in a smaller chip).
Btw, compute power is the way to go. It is really funny that sony (who were so proud of there 8 ACEs in the PS4) is now saying that it is hard to saturate more CUs. It is not (at least not in a console).
Last edited:
WHERE'S the mention of the cpu, gpu boost frequency then.?
None of that was mentioned in that leak from gitihub.
Still waiting evidence if was a last minute panic from Sony and not in the spec sheets that would have been sent to developers.
The only evidence is from the BS posted here.
martino
Member
I mean he is speculating , like you btw.
Last edited:
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Well, it was a performance test by the company responsible for creating the chips and everything in the leak was spot-on except for not mentioning the boost frequency. Now what do you want to insinuate? That the Github leak was just a lucky guess guessing everything correct except for the frequency boost on PS5? That it was a nasty attack by AMD against Sony, deliberately misrepresenting the performance of the hardware? That Sony kept it a secret from AMD that they had devised a secret plan on how they want to handle frequencies?
Isn't it pretty obvious that the only reasonable explanation is that Sony learned, in the meantime, that XSX was stronger than they anticipated and reacted by using the wiggle room the architecture gives to achieve a performance closer to their direct competitor?
MilkyJoe
Member
I think the evidence is "TAA DAAAAAAA" it's blinding obvious, do you really think Sony would choose to push the gpu that hard by design?
No your just speculating like everyone else is.
But if we hear from developers that they heard ages ago about the cpu and gpu frequency boost,then it will prove the theories in here that it was a last minute panic job by Sony when they saw the MS specs,was just BS
How do you even know Sony were bothered by the series x specs anyway,they both gone down different routes in the design of the console.Sony appears focused more on the SSD and audio..Perhaps Sony had a different lower price plan for the ps5 compared to MS.
Time will tell.
When the games come out who is going to give a toss when they are playing gt7,and the next Forza
,hard to work out who that’s going to be....
ZywyPL
Banned
I'm looking forward to the CPU/GPU power balancing. I can imagine it'll go something like this during a game:
GPU (98%) - Dude, help! I'm almost maxed out!
CPU (34%) - Hey man, take some of my power.
GPU (67%) - Awesome, thanks!
Later:
CPU (97%) - Gah! Now I'm getting close to MY limit!
GPU (58%) - Quick! Take some of my power.
CPU (77%) - Phew, that was a close one.
Now just imagine that happening several times a second
But what will happen in scenarios like:
GPU (98%) - Somebody help me!
CPU (97%) - Me too!
Because the devs will obviously squeeze as much as possible from the next-gen consoles, especially when aiming for 60FPS.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
As previously highlighted no one would intentionally design a system this way by choice because there's no benefit, there's no advantage, there's only disadvantage. I don't know how many times that needs to be reiterated.No your just speculating like everyone else is.
But if we hear from developers that they heard ages ago about the cpu and gpu frequency boost,then it will prove the theories in here that it was a last minute panic job by Sony when they saw the MS specs,was just BS
How do you even know Sony were bothered by the series x specs anyway,they both gone down different routes in the design of the console.Sony appears focused more on the SSD and audio..Perhaps Sony had a different lower price plan for the ps5 compared to MS.
Time will tell.
When the games come out who is going to give a toss when they are playing gt7,and the next Forza
So the only possible conclusion is it wasn't, this is hamfisted late in development "we have to get more out of this system" fuckery. The very fact that the GPU boosts that high is an immediate red flag, the hardware boosting period is a red flag, and the other red flag is that resources offset between the CPU and GPU and cannibalize each other.
This isn't intelligent design, it's the exact opposite. So if the CPU needs more resources the GPU lowers frequency and as a result capability, if the GPU needs more resources the CPU lowers its frequency reducing its capability. That is flat out dumb.
That's reactive manipulation of a platform which had a different intention, that's sloppy.
FranXico
Member
Cerny mentioned that devs can choose which to prioritize. In your example, a game might request to prioritize the GPU and let the CPU downclock. Then framerate likely suffers.
ZywyPL
Banned
That's what I'm afraid the most regarding PS5 - that those variable clocks will translate into very variable framerate... VRR-capable TV will come in handy of course, but those without it will have to rely on the games design/polish, whether they are locked with big FPS headroom, or are running at an edge and will frequently drop below targeted framerate... but i imagine most of the devs, especially 3rd party ones will target the 3.5GHz CPU as it's practically identical to XBX and PCs, while the GPU will remain downclocked and CBR will be uses whenever needed.
lepermessiah
Member
No need for smarmy hyperbole, given how small the delta is, we've yet to see real-world performance, you know, empirical results, failing to see nuance is more cultish than confirmation bias with regard to specs, no? My prediction is that Series X will have more frames and output res, especially on 3rd party, however, Sony might get a fidelity edge while sacrificing frames and output res. sO DriNk Up MaTE
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
It is a difficult marketing position to be in for now, where prices are not finalised yet, to have a system that is significantly weaker in terms of specs and the optics of contrasting sub-10 Tflops to 12 Tflops are particularly inconvenient, even if the actual effect on games will be similarly negligible as it was last time around. Also nowhere did I say panic. When they realised they went for a weaker configuration, they likely just used the headroom their existing design offered to close part of the gapand focussed their tech talk on different aspects, where they are either clearly superior (SSD) or where they are using an unusual approach.
I agree that chances are that the PS5 will be cheaper than the XSX and that most will not care much about the power differential when both consoles are out, but this ridiculous level of denial of reality to diminish or deny the obvious power advantage the XSX carries, is plainly embarassing. Very similar to fellow Nintendo fans going off some secret sauce rumors by fanboy idiots when Revolution was reported to be significantly weaker than Xbox 360 (hell it even continued when Red Steel was shown...). PS5 is very likely, almost guaranteed to be the victor of the next generation, due to brand strength, price, regional strength and momentum from the current generation; having weaker tech has never hurt the PlayStation systems much.
Last edited:
PropellerEar
Member
Haven't we seen that with 4k benchmarks on PC the bottleneck isn't the CPU, the results are almost the same between 9900k and 3700x?
So having GPU boosted at cost of CPU should be acceptable. This is not PC where 720p high FPS benchmark is the most important thing in the world.
That said disapointed in 36 cu's, that is a last gen CU count, but still getting PS5 day 1.
How can XSeX show the more powerful HW. Probably in slightly better looking multiplatform games. Their show cases were not convincing at all. Gears5 that looked almost the same as XboneX version, and loading SoD2 that wasn't even that fast. No idea how much the tie in to last gen and PC,will affect XSeX with 1st party games, but I don't think that will be significant, I think they will be able to use the improved features on XseX just fine and disable on PC and XBone.
I think MSFT is in a good situation for next gen, but there is nothing shown that would make me consider them at this moment.
So having GPU boosted at cost of CPU should be acceptable. This is not PC where 720p high FPS benchmark is the most important thing in the world.
That said disapointed in 36 cu's, that is a last gen CU count, but still getting PS5 day 1.
How can XSeX show the more powerful HW. Probably in slightly better looking multiplatform games. Their show cases were not convincing at all. Gears5 that looked almost the same as XboneX version, and loading SoD2 that wasn't even that fast. No idea how much the tie in to last gen and PC,will affect XSeX with 1st party games, but I don't think that will be significant, I think they will be able to use the improved features on XseX just fine and disable on PC and XBone.
I think MSFT is in a good situation for next gen, but there is nothing shown that would make me consider them at this moment.