ChiefDada
Gold Member
Ok….but I’m not sure how that relates to what I said.
I was specifically responding to the portion of your comment that I bolded. Everything prior I agreed 100%. You said it's "safe to assume" lack of optimization by the developer in cases where there is significant performance delta. I think that logic is problematic because a developer can optimize to hell and back and there can still be a significant delta that favors the lower TF machine.
I’m talking about forum responses, not DF. I’m also referring to games with significant differences in performance between PS5 and XSX.
Yes, and I am saying that DF is responsible for this flawed logic that many here in this forum use repeatedly.
Secondly, we have to have a consensus for what constitutes as "significant difference". In the context of performance benchmarking, coupled with adopting the flawed methodology of using TF as ultimate measure of performance, any performance benchmark where PS5 outperforms Series X should be considered significant. Why? Because the 12TF XSX is 20% faster than the 10TF PS5 out the gate, based on pure theoretical compute. So any benchmark that shows a PS5 performance advantage indicates that PS5 has overcome a 20% deficit at minimum. In the case of Wild Hearts (since we're discussing in this thread), a 10-12fps PS5 advantage suggest the 10TF PS5 is performing as a 14-15TF console vs the 12TF XSX, or conversely, the 12TF XSX is performing as an 8TF console vs the 10 TF PS5, depending on how you want to organize the numbers/relationship. If you replace both consoles with any two PC cards with the same architecture, ALL tech outlets, DF included, would categorize such results as "significant". I would argue that even when performance is equivalent, that is a significant performance delta in favor of the lower TF console.