Insane Metal
Gold Member
Cerny's watching you.
Cerny's watching you.
I heard the engine isn't even using the GPUs, it's entirely running in audio DSPs apparently.err, isn't this running at 1440p/60fps? I don't think they're exploiting any performance....anywhere
You cant know that without a version of the game built from the beginning for next-gen to compare to.
You never know what extra bells and whistles could have been done without the need for cross-gen.
MWII and CP (which are the games quoted on the post you answered to) are crossgen,so I was talking about last gen too. I was not talking about Series S or X.SX is modern hardware, calling it “last gen” is nothing but ignorance.
Tools should be arriving by 2026 according to my source.
Here a pre development unit:
I have a Cerny under my bed.
They've been performing better the last 12 months or more iirc... But yeah, PC lacks modern Xbox features for velocity architecture, if they're not on PC maybe they can't start using them since they use PC for developing the games?
Jokes aside, it's literally what's being said, that the Series X is more powerful, but PS5 tools are better. PS5 tools can only improve up until 100% efficiency, so it's only a matter of time when XSX version of games will just perform better on a regular basis. Fortnite is probably a preview of what's to come since most games will be using UE5, at least in the near future.
Shows their lack of tech understanding, much like fanbases and gamers as a whole.From what I remember was about 10 of us or so that was the regular group who gamed together and just mainly remember Mike kept saying "they fucked up" in regards to Sony trying to get "cute" with the SSD and should have gone with more power.
I do remember them saying we will never see any real world in game differences as what that SSD tech would do as compared to the Xbox option
Maybe people don't find my little stories interesting and maybe I should stop since I am name dropping and all
Was Penello with you?
Possibly but have we seen yet that SSD put to use where we can say "Now that's something the Series X simply can't do?" type of thing?Shows their lack of tech understanding, much like fanbases and gamers as a whole.
The decompression alone so far. On average, games are 30% smaller and still load assets faster.Possibly but have we seen yet that SSD put to use where we can say "Now that's something the Series X simply can't do?" type of thing?
Its an honest question
Ratchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.Possibly but have we seen yet that SSD put to use where we can say "Now that's something the Series X simply can't do?" type of thing?
Its an honest question
I don't question any of the design decisions made by either team as all that is way above my pay gradeRatchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.
We can critique Cerny's choice of hyper-focusing on the SSD instead of GPU power.
However, look at Microsoft, they prioritised having more GPU performance than the PS5 yet the PS5 is still trading blows and maintaining parity with the Series X on most titles.
Microsoft also touted severel of the Series X/S features like DirectML, Velocity Architecture, VRS, Mesh Shaders and Ray tracing. Yet these features have a poor adoption rate across titles, especially Xbox first party titles (of course the sample size is small but that's another can of worms in itself.)
The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.
I think we should now stop questioning Mark Cerny's design choices for the PS5.
It’s less about power imo, but more about being market leader that gets more focus or money to develop games for. That is how it works .Ratchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.
We can critique Cerny's choice of hyper-focusing on the SSD instead of GPU power.
However, look at Microsoft, they prioritised having more GPU performance than the PS5 yet the PS5 is still trading blows and maintaining parity with the Series X on most titles.
Microsoft also touted severel of the Series X/S features like DirectML, Velocity Architecture, VRS, Mesh Shaders and Ray tracing. Yet these features have a poor adoption rate across titles, especially Xbox first party titles (of course the sample size is small but that's another can of worms in itself.)
The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.
I think we should now stop questioning Mark Cerny's design choices for the PS5.
I don't question any of the design decisions made by either team as all that is way above my pay grade
I just found it interesting how the higher ups at then Xbox viewed Cerny's decisions and thought some here might as well
I think as far as R&C goes if I am not mistaken Digital Foundry tested the slowest compatible SSD for the PS5 and loads times were only fractionally slower and this was on an SSD rated something like 50% slower than what Sony recommended
How do you figure there is poor adoption rate or are you conflating not hearing people talking about them as being non-utilized or under-utilized? Not saying you are wrong but this seems like a statement where you are using a lack of info as a source to prove a point. It simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny as anything more than conjecture.Ratchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.
We can critique Cerny's choice of hyper-focusing on the SSD instead of GPU power.
However, look at Microsoft, they prioritised having more GPU performance than the PS5 yet the PS5 is still trading blows and maintaining parity with the Series X on most titles.
Microsoft also touted severel of the Series X/S features like DirectML, Velocity Architecture, VRS, Mesh Shaders and Ray tracing. Yet these features have a poor adoption rate across titles, especially Xbox first party titles (of course the sample size is small but that's another can of worms in itself.)
The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.
I think we should now stop questioning Mark Cerny's design choices for the PS5.
How do you figure there is poor adoption rate or are you conflating not hearing people talking about them as being non-utilized or under-utilized? Not saying you are wrong but this seems like a statement where you are using a lack of info as a source to prove a point. It simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny as anything more than conjecture.
Yes, you're right. They tested SN750 SE, which has 58% of the read/write recommended speed from Sony and it also didn't have a heat sink (which Sony also recommends) and they did not notice anything above a split second difference.
[/URL]
I'm not going to prove you wrong for two main reasons. 1 it doesn't really matter to me, and 2, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's your job to back up what you said, not mine or others to do the leg work for you.Any games using DirectML on Series X? None that I'm aware of.
Any games using Mesh Shaders on Series X? None that I'm aware of.
Any games using VRS on Series X? a handful and it's hardly a next-gen feature.
I'm glad to be proven wrong.
We got a pretty big gdk update in JuneTHE TOOLS ARE COMING!!!!
Any minute now...Just you wait!
The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.
Half of the people in this thread were among those convinced the PS5 was a 14.5TF machine with 24GB HBM2 memory with a magical SSD which would make all games look better and erase load times entirely.
Metro Exodus and Witcher 3 don't run better on SX. The only games that have a clear improvement on SX that I know of are- bright memory infinite, hitman 3, and Lego Star Wars, I think I read Asseto Corsa has a higher resolution too but buying that turd of a port again to find outPS5 is leading the console space in terms of RT owing to it having more first party games out with it.
If you're talking about implementation and the performance costs, SX generally runs multi-platform RT games better.
RE Village, Control, Witcher 3, Metro Exodus EE etc all run with some advantages on Series X over PS5 either in terms of performance or higher dynamic resolutions, or both, in their RT modes.
Callisto Protocol is the only recent outlier, but that game released in a very poor state on Xbox compared to PS5 in the first place, you can see which platform got the primary focus from the developers.
-
MS needs more games with RT. I think we can safely rule out Starfield having RT. Redfall *might* have an RT mode, Forza Motorsport will be game play RT + 60 FPS so that'll be a great benchmark when it comes out.
Forgot one more for SX- Doom Eternal looks a lot better in RT mode vs Ps5, which has lower AF and blurring RT reflectionsMetro Exodus and Witcher 3 don't run better on SX. The only games that have a clear improvement on SX that I know of are- bright memory infinite, hitman 3, and Lego Star Wars, I think I read Asseto Corsa has a higher resolution too but buying that turd of a port again to find out
I actually wish there WAS a difference in games between ps5 and series x as I bought an X after already having a ps5. Some people were saying Far Cry 6 had a higher resolution on X so my dumbest bought it twice (I know ..bad) and whatever improvement it might've had was mitigated by having worse lods...basically they look the same.
I think the notion of sx doing third parties better is more or less a myth. Hitman 3 and Lego Star Wars are the only games that are clearly running higher settings on SX
Metro Exodus and Witcher 3 don't run better on SX. The only games that have a clear improvement on SX that I know of are- bright memory infinite, hitman 3, and Lego Star Wars, I think I read Asseto Corsa has a higher resolution too but buying that turd of a port again to find out
I think the notion of sx doing third parties better is more or less a myth. Hitman 3 and Lego Star Wars are the only games that are clearly running higher settings on SX
I think as far as R&C goes if I am not mistaken Digital Foundry tested the slowest compatible SSD for the PS5 and loads times were only fractionally slower and this was on an SSD rated something like 50% slower than what Sony recommended
Switch version of WRC Generations is better, some very noticeable pop-in but less of the misery of WRC 10.
It is what it is: they're scaling down to an under-powered platform for a niche audience that doesn't buy a lot of sports/racing games. They are customizing it as much as is reasonable for the audience (and with results as bad as WRC 10, they probably should have abandoned or delayed the port,) but from a business perspective it's not the version of the game which is most vital to get right.
Ps5 and Series X will show very little performance gap this gen, you ain't even gonna notice it until performance reviews are out. It's all about first party studios that will showcase their games made for current gen only. Console warring should have ended long ago already.
Come on, they didn't even try in the slightest. It's basically shovelware. Shoddy efforts don't help with sales.
Well, it looks and runs better, so they did "try"...
I don't really care myself, don't buy it (I didn't,) I'm just letting people know that it's apparently not the same mess this time if you really want a WRC game on a portable (and don't have a Steam Deck.)
Switch users are used to not getting bespoke, optimized versions of games on their handheld/console hybrid (aside from Switch exclusives,) and some genres are severely underserved on the platform so that limits choices even further. (There's a little over 80 total racing games on Switch according to MetaCritic records, and if you've already played the heck out of V-Rally 4, there's not a lot else to consider aside from top-down stuff like Art of Rally.) Switch users also also used to just not buying things if they're bound to not be enticing on their platform (which has in turn driven some developers away from Switch despite its install base; it's a catch-22, they don't make good football games on Switch because the football audience doesn't buy these games on Switch, in part because they're not good.) If you play primarily with Switch, you have to live in the reality of their hardware and audience base, and sometimes a developer finds the money or talent to produce an "impossible port", but for the most part, you get what it gives or you find it somewhere else.
There is the very small thing that this "50% slower SSD" is connected to PS5's custom I/O complex which contains a beefy decompressor, two co-processors, a low latency/high bandwidth SRAM pool, coherency engines and aI think as far as R&C goes if I am not mistaken Digital Foundry tested the slowest compatible SSD for the PS5 and loads times were only fractionally slower and this was on an SSD rated something like 50% slower than what Sony recommended
The mentioned compute shader/TMU path workaround is useful when there's an unused compute shader resource and attempts to shift the bottleneck towards memory bandwidth and L2 cache (software render tile methods).This likely goes hand in hand with the PS5's GPU being more easily used to its peak, while the XSX needs some workarounds to show more of its power. This workaround would work just the same on the PS5 as well, worth remembering, unless the move to being bandwidth bound ends up mattering.
There's been a lot of people referencing the PS5's system design being amazing on developers and I feel like we didn't really know what they meant, even the now Xbox exclusive Todd Howard said the PS5 was a beastly system design on the Lex interview, I think they made a really great unbottlenecked system design, it sounds like a meme but it's really not. We're also seeing games that lean into the SSD offload tech like Returnal need 32GB of RAM to do the same thing on PC, because while on paper PC SSDs can already be faster, again in practice becomes very different and it's all that offload it did which would be the equivalent of 16 Zen 2 cores or something along those lines.
This is not to say any fanboy nonsense like Microsoft didn't think about their system design, it does have higher shader performance, but there's some workarounds needed to really show it off fully.
XSX's memory bandwidth difference is based on the memory address range.Split memory bandwith (10GB have full bandwith and the remaining 6 are slower)
wide and (it looks like) more complicated than PS5 GPU processing power.
Reminders,There is the very small thing that this "50% slower SSD" is connected to PS5's custom I/O complex which contains a beefy decompressor, two co-processors, a low latency/high bandwidth SRAM pool, a coherency engine and a DME...
I dont know what your point is but you're comparing a recent CPU vs a CPU made like 2yrs+ ago? Ofc it would be better in almost every aspect.I have Ryzen 9 7900X with 12 Zen 4 CPU cores are roughly equivalent to 16 Zen 3 cores on Ryzen 9 5950X. On AI/ML workloads, Zen 4 crushed Zen 2 and Zen 3.