that has nothing to do with the hardware and everything with developers neglecting it.
the game running on a 6GB GTX1060 (~4TF)
medium at 1080p uses about 4.3GB VRAM.
it's hard to say how much system memory it uses because the overlay only displays the total memory used by windows + the game and any programs open at the moment.
memory bandwidth 192GB/s vs the 224GB/s the S has
ID and other developers being vindicated with time.Well I did say that my expectation was that as the generation moves on some developers would end up neglecting the system...
But regardless you're now comparing apples to oranges, the video your referencing is a PC that also has 16GB of system ram. Overall the ram situation in the Series S is also not so straight forward:
Honestly I don't understand why people expect developers to have to give special treatment to the Series S. Moving to next gen systems only should make things easier for them from a technical perspective, not more difficult.
ID and other developers being vindicated with time.
The situation is what it is. We're going to see more of this, and not less. We can only hope that SX and PS5 versions are 'prioritized' and SS just continues to be a 'side consideration' and aggressively cut back and not hinder the other versions. It's a bit of wishful thinking though.
MS's best option, if it comes to that, would be to just remove the mandate for native Series S versions of all games. But that would come with a pretty big PR hit on them, at least initially.
You'd still get games with native Series S versions, but these would be among the lesser technically demanding.
I still question the logic behind not making the Series S a BC-centric machine for XBO games running at improved resolutions, and paired that with a digital-only Series X with less internal storage but able to sell at $399 and use those to replace the One S and One X, respectively, in pricing brackets while disc Series X itself being the $499 alternative.
We'd probably be seeing better sales for Xbox in general and none of the headaches we are seeing (most likely) due to complications with the Series S.
Well I did say that my expectation was that as the generation moves on some developers would end up neglecting the system...
But regardless you're now comparing apples to oranges, the video your referencing is a PC that also has 16GB of system ram. Overall the ram situation in the Series S is also not so straight forward:
Its not just this gen. Here is kinda how it goes.What`s going on this generation?
- This game: Total mess
- Dead Space Remake : Sub 1080p internal resolution @ 60 fps
- Hogwarts legacy: Also pretty unstable 60 fps
- Evil West: Only 1080p @ 60 fps
- Gotham Knights: No comment
- Halo Infinite: No comment
And the list goes on and on. Also, I've only talked about PS5 and XSX so far. XSS is a technical disaster³.
The PC as a platform isn't much better off either, with its constant "stuttering issues" and generally poor optimization.
Removing Series S versions wouldn’t just result in a PR hit but a class action lawsuit. They promised a system that could run ALL next-gen content and it’s especially damning when the versions reside within the same download file. Imagine downloading a game and receiving an error that it’s incompatible with your Series S but runs fine on a Series X? The mandate isn’t even a mandate it’s a requirement.MS's best option, if it comes to that, would be to just remove the mandate for native Series S versions of all games. But that would come with a pretty big PR hit on them, at least initially.
You'd still get games with native Series S versions, but these would be among the lesser technically demanding.
I still question the logic behind not making the Series S a BC-centric machine for XBO games running at improved resolutions, and paired that with a digital-only Series X with less internal storage but able to sell at $399 and use those to replace the One S and One X, respectively, in pricing brackets while disc Series X itself being the $499 alternative.
We'd probably be seeing better sales for Xbox in general and none of the headaches we are seeing (most likely) due to complications with the Series S.
that has nothing to do with the hardware and everything with developers neglecting it.
the game running on a 6GB GTX1060 (~4TF)
medium at 1080p uses about 4.3GB VRAM.
it's hard to say how much system memory it uses because the overlay only displays the total memory used by windows + the game and any programs open at the moment.
memory bandwidth 192GB/s vs the 224GB/s the S has
What`s going on this generation?
- This game: Total mess
- Dead Space Remake : Sub 1080p internal resolution @ 60 fps
- Hogwarts legacy: Also pretty unstable 60 fps
- Evil West: Only 1080p @ 60 fps
- Gotham Knights: No comment
- Halo Infinite: No comment
And the list goes on and on. Also, I've only talked about PS5 and XSX so far. XSS is a technical disaster³.
The PC as a platform isn't much better off either, with its constant "stuttering issues" and generally poor optimization.
Here we go...A faster CPU a better GPU and 3 more TF yet the X can't keep parity with the weaker machine, let alone beat it? What is going on?
It's a genuine gaming question on a gaming forum. When was the last time a more powerful machine was destroyed in performance by the 'weaker' machine? I would say 360 and ps3 but the 360 wasn't that much weaker than the PS3.Here we go...
Hats off to adamsapple for posting a DF tech review that isn't in favor of the Xbox and didn't "conveniently" exclude some details in the summary for the first time
adamsapple does a good job with his summaries, imo.
These consoles are NOT 1080p machines.I'm actually shocked how much these consoles are really 1080p machines.
I really thought they would hit 1440p at 60fps in nearly all games.
Kinda bab tbh
Last I remember reading the PS5's CPU in practice was actually better despite the clock. I forget the particulars on that one though. More offloading of tasks to dedicated silicon, cache scrubbers. It was along those lines.Summary is the game is fugly, but the PS5 version can be made less fugly with a patch, but the XSX version is just flat out broke and the XSS is best avoided?
A faster CPU a better GPU and 3 more TF yet the X can't keep parity with the weaker machine, let alone beat it? What is going on?
Both of these statements can be, and are, true at the same time.
Truth is that this is getting old. There is a reason why Nvidia and AMD don't talk about TFs anymore. And MS now knows why too. It's easy to scream TFs when talking to the layman because that gives them a number that they can say this is bigger than that one so its better.It's a genuine gaming question on a gaming forum. When was the last time a more powerful machine was destroyed in performance by the 'weaker' machine? I would say 360 and ps3 but the 360 wasn't that much weaker than the PS3.
Saturn vs N64? Saturn Vs Ps1?
Summary is the game is fugly, but the PS5 version can be made less fugly with a patch, but the XSX version is just flat out broke and the XSS is best avoided?
A faster CPU a better GPU and 3 more TF yet the X can't keep parity with the weaker machine, let alone beat it? What is going on?
I downloaded the trial and the app allocation is 6-7GB of VRAM at 4k maxed on my 2080 Ti. 1080p standard uses about half of that.
It's basically nothing.
8 more TF, last I heard PS5 was on par with the Series SSummary is the game is fugly, but the PS5 version can be made less fugly with a patch, but the XSX version is just flat out broke and the XSS is best avoided?
A faster CPU a better GPU and 3 more TF yet the X can't keep parity with the weaker machine, let alone beat it? What is going on?
Make it 1.87 TF (12.15–10.28=1.87). The differencial in our most favorite GPU metric should be properly respected thus presented in razor sharp accuracy.2 more teraflops. Not 3. But the difference is proving to be largely negligible and we are seeing that in the games.
My bad, thought the difference was 8 TFMake it 1.87 TF (12.15–10.28=1.87). The differencial in our most precious GPU metric should be properly respected thus presented in razor sharp accuracy.
I thought the Ps5 was a 9tf machine that was overclocked at the last minute as a panic reaction by Cerny to match the power of the XSX?2 more teraflops. Not 3. But the difference is proving to be largely negligible and we are seeing that in the games.
I thought the Ps5 was a 9tf machine that was overclocked at the last minute as a panic reaction by Cerny to match the power of the XSX?
I'm just joking. I know the PS5 is a 10+tf machine. Nothing wrong with a bit of humor
No that's the whole compute power of Alex' custom PS5.My bad, thought the difference was 8 TF
A faster CPU a better GPU and 3 more TF yet the X can't keep parity with the weaker machine, let alone beat it? What is going on?
You forgot about "Japanese developers being nationalistic ..stards."The explanation is very simple.
*If it runs better on PS5
1. Lazy Devs
2. The tools for Xbox aren’t ready
3. Sony paid off the devs or marketing deal 4. Sony dev teams helped
*If it runs better on Xbox
1. Proof of the power delta and it's only going to get bigger
Period.
The explanation is very simple.
*If it runs better on PS5
1. Lazy Devs
2. The tools for Xbox aren’t ready
3. Sony paid off the devs or marketing deal 4. Sony dev teams helped
*If it runs better on Xbox
1. Proof of the power delta and it's only going to get bigger
Period.
The marketing deals dictating the performance is a recent one from what I've seen. Probably one of the more laughable reasons given for a disparity in performance.
I do think devs have some responsibility here but it is obvious some are being selective when playing the "lazy devs" card. The vast majority of games perform largely the same between PS5 and XSX. When a game shows a distinct performance difference then I think it is safe to say the struggling version didn't get enough optimization, regardless of which console we are talking about.
I disagree. Tbh I wouldn't fault a dev for taking this sentiment as an insult. At the start of the current generation developers have told us straight up that raw specs are not indicative of actual results. I like DF, but I am often disappointed in their ill-informed coverage. Virtually every time PS5 outperforms XSX, their reaction is almost always "Huh, that is so weird. We know the Xbox has a more powerful GPU so this shouldn't be happening". It's such an elementary analysis, and particularly inexcusable from a tech-centric outlet. This happened yet again in this week's DF Direct, although John did come around to say that developers have told him they prefer PS5 API. They do a disservice to their audience. It's as if they want to avoid any potential conflict with certain companies. I can appreciate trying to manage this difficult balancing act for business relations, but it should NEVER get in the way of your primary objective, which is to inform and educate their audience in an objective manner. Conversely, folks such as NXGamer have done a phenomenal job reiterating what Cerny and other objective developers have been trying to communicate - performance for all platforms is based on the sum of their parts, not on any one specific metric or hardware piece. GPU/CPU/Memory/API/ etc. all contribute to actual performance and there are enough variances between the two premier consoles to have differences that can't be explained just by looking at theoretical GPU compute; such cases, which are pretty common at this point, are the perfect opportunity for outlets like DF to EDUCATE. Instead, they choose to perpetuate their audience's ignorance on the subject.
I don't think the PS5 SSD has been or was ever overhyped. I mean, its doing exactly what they said it would do. And when used right, you can see games with as little as 3 seconds load times.I hear ya. The narratives regarding the power of these consoles leading up to launch were bizarre to say the least. I'd say, so far, XSX GPU advantage has been overhyped as has PS5's SSD advantage. These consoles are more alike than different.
I don't think the PS5 SSD has been or was ever overhyped. I mean, its doing exactly what they said it would do. And when used right, you can see games with as little as 3 seconds load times.
The issue with the SSD, and if used to its best, its that being twice as fast as that in the Xbox, while sounding great on paper, doesn't really mean shit when you consider you are talking about 3 seconds vs 5/6 seconds.
Again I will counter, that that is not false either. The tech is there to do it, and it has improved how devs actually buy their games.The hype wasn't about load times.
[/URL]
Again I will counter, that that is not false either. The tech is there to do it, and it has improved how devs actually buy their games.
That devs have not actually used the tech to its potential, isn't the tech's fault. I would think that right now its mostly used as a way to just make mapping out levels easier by the devs during development. Stuff that would be mostly invisible to us but integral to devs.
It's not all about loading though, streaming plays a big part of way It's twice as fast.I don't think the PS5 SSD has been or was ever overhyped. I mean, its doing exactly what they said it would do. And when used right, you can see games with as little as 3 seconds load times.
The issue with the SSD, and if used to its best, its that being twice as fast as that in the Xbox, while sounding great on paper, doesn't really mean shit when you consider you are talking about 3 seconds vs 5/6 seconds.
Simple, these were not going to remain sixty fps machines as we begin to leave the last generation behind. Games look better and are bigger than ever before, but that comes at a cost, one that the ps5 and series x wont be able to pay at 60 fps. Honestly its fine with me, ive seen consoles as 30fps machines primarily since the 360 daysWhat`s going on this generation?
- This game: Total mess
- Dead Space Remake : Sub 1080p internal resolution @ 60 fps
- Hogwarts legacy: Also pretty unstable 60 fps
- Evil West: Only 1080p @ 60 fps
- Gotham Knights: No comment
- Halo Infinite: No comment
And the list goes on and on. Also, I've only talked about PS5 and XSX so far. XSS is a technical disaster³.
The PC as a platform isn't much better off either, with its constant "stuttering issues" and generally poor optimization.
Then refer to my OP on that matter cause I addressed that.I'm not saying anything is "false". But there has been little difference in practice compared to XSX, which was my original point.
I know...It's not all about loading though, streaming plays a big part of way It's twice as fast.
"So when I talked about the dream of an SSD part of the reason for that 5 gigabytes a second target was to eliminate loads, but also part of the reason for that target was streaming. As in what if the SSD is so fast that as the player is turning around, it's possible to load textures for everything behind the player in that split second.
If you figure that it takes half a second to turn that's 4GB of compressed data you can load, that sounds about right for next gen."
I wouldn't go into details, but there's lots of gameplay mechanics that is now possible with those kind of speeds.