• 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.

PS5 specs revealed. Up to 10.2 Tflops.

Nvzman

Member
ps5 got xboxoned.

No console that has won a generation has been weaker than the competition at release.
The Wii? Hello????

I can already tell from your comment you clearly have a massive bias up your ass so I'm not going any further than this. You don't have a clue what you are talking about though. The only objective metric of "winning" a generation is by sales, so don't even try a "well uhhhh the Wii didn't really win" asspull.

If you take out the release part of that metric (which still isnt even true with that full statement as I already mentioned), pretty much every highest selling console that objectively "won" the sales competition is usually the weaker/weakest hardware. The PS4 (up until the Xbox One X's release) was the only sole exception. PS1, PS2, Wii, all were generally inferior in hardware aspects to the real competition, and yet they all sold like hotcakes. Why do you think??? Because consumers give a shit about games, not terraflop bullshit.
 
Last edited:

jakinov

Member
Where did you see the CPU, not 16 threads?

People also not noticed the 10gigs on the xbox one series for games, the first slot, memory bandwidth has at a higher frequency. There pool is split. The first pool is. 560gbs. Sony 448gbs all 16 gigs.
The split memory is likely both cost savings while giving the CPU super fast access to a fairly large pool of very fast memory. They probably could have done consistent but slower memory like Sony but they probably thought being able to feed the CPU faster would be more beneficial even if not all RAM could do it. I don't remember if it was mentioned, but the slower memory data can likely move to fast memory very fast (if needed). Though that does add a bit of latency but the high speed of the fast memory likely negates can transfer that are needed if ever.
 
Man lets be real for a second here. Both consoles are amazing for what you get for the price.

Even it's 500-600$ it's great power for the price. With ampere likely being pushed to next year now you get a device that is very close to a high end PC for the fraction of the cost.

If I would be on a budged or not already own a powerfull PC, I would be psyched to get such a powerfull device for that price. Everyone should just be happy.
I don’t see anything amazing in the ps5, other than the ssd. Very conservative GPU true power (around 9 TF), disappointing Ram bus, mediocre Ram speed, decent CPU (if it can come close to its peak performance number). It is the PS4 all over again, except that MS isn’t in the Xbox one era.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Yeah, but the point still stands. In practical, REAL WORLD applications, the difference between the two is like blinking a few extra times. When it comes to actual differences in gameplay, it's next to nothing. PC gamers have been praising SSD's for a long time, I have 3 SSD's and 2 NVME's in my PC and I love them, but even my NVME's, that are faster, don't make a significant difference in any application that uses it. People that want to hold Sony's implementation of the tech as some sort of badge of honor are grasping at straws for reasons as to why their favorite piece of plastic could be better than someone else's piece of plastic.
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.

I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.

But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite? :goog_rofl:

Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the point still stands. In practical, REAL WORLD applications, the difference between the two is like blinking a few extra times. When it comes to actual differences in gameplay, it's next to nothing. PC gamers have been praising SSD's for a long time, I have 3 SSD's and 2 NVME's in my PC and I love them, but even my NVME's, that are faster, don't make a significant difference in any application that uses it. People that want to hold Sony's implementation of the tech as some sort of badge of honor are grasping at straws for reasons as to why their favorite piece of plastic could be better than someone else's piece of plastic.


please watch the presentation again and see the slide with other non-bandwidth bottlenecks concerning I/O AGAIN. this should tell you why it's not comparable to SSD in PCs.

furthermore asset sizes will grow orders of magnitude because of this. asset sizes today are made for HDD. you can't compare recent games to nextgen games that will leverage this fact.
 

sunnysideup

Banned
The Wii? Hello????

I can already tell from your comment you clearly have a massive bias up your ass so I'm not going any further than this. You don't have a clue what you are talking about though. The only objective metric of "winning" a generation is by sales, so don't even try a "well uhhhh the Wii didn't really win" asspull.

If you take out the release part of that metric (which still isnt even true with that full statement as I already mentioned), pretty much every highest selling console that objectively "won" the sales competition is usually the weaker/weakest hardware. The PS4 (up until the Xbox One X's release) was the only sole exception pretty much. PS1, PS2, Wii, all were generally inferior in hardware aspects to the real competition, and yet they all sold like hotcakes. Why do you think??? Because consumers give a shit about games, not terraflop bullshit.
wii is a gimmick
 

sdrawkcab

Banned
Xbox Series X and Xbox Platform -
Jump from playing your games on console, PC, mobile and can even stream from your console.
Xbox Game Pass.
Two (2) More Teraflops.
Higher CPU clock speeds.
Sustained CPU and GPU speeds.
Higher memory bandwidth.

If you had to purchase just one console, or buy one console first, the answer is extremely easy; the Xbox Series X!
 
Yeah, but the point still stands. In practical, REAL WORLD applications, the difference between the two is like blinking a few extra times. When it comes to actual differences in gameplay, it's next to nothing. PC gamers have been praising SSD's for a long time, I have 3 SSD's and 2 NVME's in my PC and I love them, but even my NVME's, that are faster, don't make a significant difference in any application that uses it.
There is an argument to be made that most games are designed for asset streaming with a baseline of a PS4 with a 5400RPM HDD. Now the baseline moves up to a very very fast NVMe SSD.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.

I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.

But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite? :goog_rofl:

Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.

The SSD loads the game into the RAM. then the Xbox has faster bandwidth than ps5 for access to said ram.
 

Senua

Member
Xbox Series X and Xbox Platform -
Jump from playing your games on console, PC, mobile and can even stream from your console.
Xbox Game Pass.
Two (2) More Teraflops.
Higher CPU clock speeds.
Sustained CPU and GPU speeds.
Higher memory bandwidth.

If you had to purchase just one console, or buy one console first, the answer is extremely easy; the Xbox Series X!
Call now to place your pre-order!
 

psorcerer

Banned
I don't see how any of that changes what I said which is that there's nothing to write home about specs wise.

Have you seen the presentation?
Have you divided 2Gb / 0.27 sec ?
Do you understand that 5.5 GB/sec is a random read/gather speed?
Do you understand that 5.5Gb/sec random gather is in the ballpark of DDR3 RAM?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
The SSD loads the game into the RAM. then the Xbox has faster bandwidth than ps5 for access to said ram.
I know how hardware works.

If one SSD loads it into RAM twice as quickly, then you'd need twice as much RAM to compensate durr durr see I can pretend like my knowledge of PC hardware matters too :messenger_dizzy:
 
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.

I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.

But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite? :goog_rofl:

Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.
Except the XSX is better in everything else, not just the gpu (and the real world difference won’t be 18% on the GPU front).
 
Last edited:

Tarin02543

Member
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.

I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.

But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite? :goog_rofl:

Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.

Exactly my sentiments. For people looking at ALLM and VRS, those are baked into the RDNA 2.0 tech so it's not like PlayStation will not have those.
 

Hotspurr

Banned


Still calling it the Chinese virus I see.

Tons of PS are sold in countries where people don't have as much money, so a more budget friendly system works wonders for sales. They tried PS3 at $600 and look how that turned out. Sales were lousy until they did Slim for $300 and sales shut through the roof years later.

Branding is important, but so is price.

A guy driving an Audi probably doesn't care if his A5 goes up $5000. But a console going up $100+ is a big deal.

That is fair.
But worst case scenario you'll have to wait a few months for a price drop.
Xbox One X debuted at $500 and it wasn't that long after that it dropped down to $400-450, probably less than a year. During this time most games are still multi platform.

Again it's a question of what the Sony fan cares about, does the Sony fan care about sales (ie. the bottom line for Sony) or about having the best possible gaming experience. If you can't plan to save $100 I think you have other more pressing matters like food, rent and bills to even be thinking about gaming consoles (and let's not forget games themselves are $60, so I don't buy this whole "$100 is a lot of money" shtik).
 
Woudlnt they all need that then? Isnt that 12.1 Tflops XSX MAX performance too?

The point that needs to be understood is that the XSX GPU @1.8GHz can be SUSTAINED. So claiming 12.2TF is truthful and can be expected realistically in games.

That 2.23GHz boost Sony is claiming is a borderline lie because there is no way it can hit that clock speed for anything more than a brief instant. The PS5 is just not a 10.2TF console.

In fact the claim of 2.23GHz at all is extremely disingenuous. It's bordering on lie territory.
 

NickFire

Member
Sony overinvested in SSD and 3D Audio imo.
At the current time, subject to change, I kind of agree. I think Sony's basic specs are fine for a significantly cheaper console than X, but putting aside MS possibly shocking us with a cheap price, I'm worried that Sony's SSD will prevent them from being all that much cheaper. And the price of expandable storage might be prohibitive even with off the shelf parts (though MS prior branded HD's for 360 were never reasonably priced at MSRP).
 

SleepDoctor

Banned
They really shit the bed here. I guess im not as disappointed about 16gb of ram as I am with the Ps5 specs. They could only keep quiet for so long with that.

Regardless the 1st party games will look great, just look at what they could do with 1.8 tf on launch ps4.

So much for "github nuthuggers" eating crow today lol. I never even believed that shit but damn im never doubting them again.
 
AvRBDen.jpg
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Except the XSX is better in everything else, not just the gpu (and the real world difference won’t be 18% on the GPU front).
Can we talk abou specs in the PS5 specs thread without someone immediately leaping up to say BUT BUT BUT NO, XBOX IS BETTER SEE? THIS SPEC SHEET SAYS SO.

Sheesh. "Play games not brands" amirite Phil Spencer?

Exactly my sentiments. For people looking at ALLM and VRS, those are baked into the RDNA 2.0 tech so it's not like PlayStation will not have those.
The loose comparison would be a ~800 GB pool of slightly-slower DDR3 RAM. Which is... kind of insanely powerful when you think about it.

Suddenly everything was RAMdrive.

Transfer speeds from the storage medium has been an issue since... well... since forever, but especially since disc-based consoles were introduced. Game development and architecture resorted to all kinds of tricks (like Metroid Prime's famous "loading doors") to compensate.

2.4 GB/s on XsX and 5.5 GB/s on PS5 are both seriously fast.
 

Trogdor1123

Member
The point that needs to be understood is that the XSX GPU @1.8GHz can be SUSTAINED. So claiming 12.2TF is truthful and can be expected realistically in games.

That 2.23GHz boost Sony is claiming is a borderline lie because there is no way it can hit that clock speed for anything more than a brief instant. The PS5 is just not a 10.2TF console.

In fact the claim of 2.23GHz at all is extremely disingenuous. It's bordering on lie territory.
And how do you know that? Seriously, how? I'm as disappointed as the next guy but let's not start making stuff up. You might be right but let's not pretend it's a fact.
 

Arkam

Member
The point that needs to be understood is that the XSX GPU @1.8GHz can be SUSTAINED. So claiming 12.2TF is truthful and can be expected realistically in games.

That 2.23GHz boost Sony is claiming is a borderline lie because there is no way it can hit that clock speed for anything more than a brief instant. The PS5 is just not a 10.2TF console.

In fact the claim of 2.23GHz at all is extremely disingenuous. It's bordering on lie territory.

Maybe i missed it, but did they say how long it could operate at that frequency? Seemed more like a sliding bar based on what is more optimal for what is being computed. He talked more about when needing to scale down for optimization, i must have missed the bit about heat/power or such limitation.
 

F355

Neo Member
I knew as soon as he started playing down numbers that they were on the defence.

Also quite possibly the most boring presentation I can remember, so much talk about SSD and audio, I mean I’ve never thought as audio as being an issue and Cerny himself said no developers asked for it , nice way to blow resources barking up the wrong tree
, could have took that down to 10 minutes or less.

Really disappointed there, I wanted ps1
And ps2 games to work, I don’t even get all my PS4 games working.

Really conflicted, I’d rather go Xbox next gem as I hated the multiplat bodge the PS3 got, But I’ve got so much money in the ps eco.

good job Microsoft
 
When I see the ps5 and Xbox series x
8c6ba46e-7d47-4ff5-9112-2207ac47b5d4-1477584869.jpg


Reminds me of the PS2 and Xbox all over again. Though it's nice to see Microsoft admit they're a pc with that ugly mini tower box. Hope game pass lasts a while though as that Nvidia cloud program showed how greedy devs can be.
 

Riven326

Banned
Or to work on a cooling solution that works.

Either way they focused on the wrong area. Raw power is far more liberating for developers than an SSD is.
Especially when you're dealing with 4k resolution. Gpu power is what truly matters.
 

Boss Mog

Member
It's OK, both are already revealed, it's the Xbox, by a decent margin. Chin chin.
I remember last gen when PS3 was hyped to be much more powerful than XBOX 360 before launch and it turns out it was the 360 that was ahead in the vast majority of multiplatform games. I'll be fine waiting thanks.
 
And how do you know that? Seriously, how? I'm as disappointed as the next guy but let's not start making stuff up. You might be right but let's not pretend it's a fact.

I'm not making anything up. Anyone who knows anything about GPU hardware will tell you the same thing I am.

There's not a single PC GPU that can hold a clock speed so high.

You can choose to not believe me if you want but the truth about this will come out. You can expect Digital Foundry to be bringing up this issue too. There's not a single customization, no secret sauce part in the PS5 that will allow for it's GPU to run at 2.23GHz for anything beyond a brief instant.
 
In contrast X plays 4 gens, increases resolution and adds HDR to old games. And 20% more powerful.

This is a one horse race on paper.

Exactly, and let's not spin this guys, the PS5 is a weaker machine and it's gonna show especially in highly graphical intense triple A 3rd party titles. I did think it was gonna be the weaker of the two systems, but not by this much. Still a powerful piece of machiney for a console at the price were most likely gonna get it for.
 
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.

I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.

But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite? :goog_rofl:

Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.

XSX SSD make because of the bulid in hardware decompressor ca 5 GB/s
and PS5 SSD has similar hardware which make it ca. 8GB/s
 

n0razi

Member
Is there really much of a difference between 12tf and 10tf? If its anything like upgrading from my GTX 1070 to an RTX 2070... its not very noticeable.
 
The point that needs to be understood is that the XSX GPU @1.8GHz can be SUSTAINED. So claiming 12.2TF is truthful and can be expected realistically in games.

That 2.23GHz boost Sony is claiming is a borderline lie because there is no way it can hit that clock speed for anything more than a brief instant. The PS5 is just not a 10.2TF console.

In fact the claim of 2.23GHz at all is extremely disingenuous. It's bordering on lie territory.
Agreed, the mental gymnastics by some Sony fans are amazing to watch. I repeat, if this presentation had been done by Microsoft we would have had a billion memes on the internet already.
The new line is that the ps5 is better optimized despite Microsoft explaining in details the optimizations done to the XSX hardware while Cerny was talking about 3D sound and SSD speeds.
 
F

Foamy

Unconfirmed Member
I find PS5 specs disappointing. I was planning on getting both at launch but I'll hold off now on PS5 till PSVR2 is out with some good games.
 
Man, I think they'll need a pretty sizable price difference if they even want to compete. Its like they (sony and ms) targeted completely different things on this and sony targeted the wrong place.

From a marketing point of view, its so much easier to sell 12 than it is to sell 10. They'll have a tough job, thats for sure.
Well we'll know that when prices are revealed if they targeted the wrong place. You're assuming they're targeting power for price rather than price first power constrained.
 
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.

I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.

But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite? :goog_rofl:

Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.
But then it loads into the RAM.
 
Top Bottom