Riky
$MSFT
Lol what imaginary engines are you talking about now?
Also when does that Crystal ball of yours say that series S will start pushing PS5
You can play Modern Warfare now at 120fps on Series S, 60fps on another console
-
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 Verge “ Why is the PS5 outperforming the ‘world’s most powerful console’?
- Thread starter AlexxKidd
- Start date
You can play Modern Warfare now at 120fps on Series S, 60fps on another console
Yoboman
Member
Thats the best possible reading on the situation after 10 months of pushing the 12 tf narrative
Agnostic2020
Member
Its not difficult to admit u were wrong. Insisting upon ur shit take few months back bring more shit towards u . But I guess u enjoy that?You can play Modern Warfare now at 120fps on Series S, 60fps on another console
Agree, and look they only have themselves to blame by pushing the power narrative. Couple that with kiddy junior Xbox scouts polluting every serious discussion on each thread. Taking the MS PR ,MS Shills, and Xbox Kiddies out of the equation. XBox Series X is great value/hardware performance box, albeit currently without no compelling exclusive/1st party offerings.
Leyasu
Banned
A 3rd party rushed to launch cross gen game is not where you should be looking.
Crow for the fanboys who have claimed many things. “Split l3 cache “ “too many CUs per cluster” “Microsoft pr” “Cerny secret sauce” etc
Same goes for the Xbox fanboys crying about tools. That is bullshit too. The truth is that a few games rushed for launch with a little COVID has hurt the optimisation. That assassins creed patch I would bet money was the day one patch that never made it.
I expect that the dirt 5 day one patch is still being worked on.
Last edited:
Agnostic2020
Member
Split l3 cache is real .wtf ? How illiterate do you have to be to think thats fake ?
Leyasu
Banned
I don’t deny their reality, I have seen the hot chips slides. What are their impacts??
Like I have said to you, not one tech site has expressed concern about that. So why do you keep harping on about it? Post your credentials please?
Last edited:
Alphagear
Member
Why isn't optimization affecting PS5 versions of the games though?
We all know PS5 is the weaker console but the gap isn't as wide as everyone made it out to be. I honestly don't expect third party games to look/perform any different in the future.
Maybe RT quality/performance will be where XSX excels.
Agnostic2020
Member
Because you haven't looked for it doesn't mean its not inferior to unified L3 cache
"
With a single unified L3 cache (assuming you have an 8 core or less model), you don't have any more issues with data having to exist in both L3 caches, which means your unified L3 cache can hold upto twice the data as the split L3 cache.
And it also means inter-core latency between cores is lower. On Zen 2 if the cacheline was shared by two cores connected to different L3 caches, then the latency could be ~70ns. But between two cores on the same L3 cache it would be ~25ns.
A unified L3 cache, even if the minimum latency increases slightly to 30ns, will still have a much lower average inter-core latency. Especially on 8 core or less models.
"
Last edited:
Leyasu
Banned
We have all seen for the last few months plenty of articles praising the ease of use of the PS5. Could that be it?
Ok thanks for that. What sort of real world hit should we expect? Have you got any examples to show us?
Dontuseducks
Member
It is not a secret that dev kits were later than Sony's. Consoles are not even out for a month and people act as if launch games are defining the whole 7 years. Both consoles are gonna get better over time. Having dev kits earlier = more time to optimize. Its not rocket science.
michaelius
Banned
Md Ray
Member
Let's see. So far we've had comparisons of:
DmC5
AC: Valhalla
Dirt 5
COD:CW
DmC5: One of the modes in DmC5 has a minor advantage on SX, PS5 outperforms it in the other mode. But I'd say they're basically the same.
AC:V: It's a clear win for PS5, as of now. Plenty of complaints about screen-tearing on SX which is due to constant frame-rate dips, so many regretted their decision for going with XSX due to this. PS5 is solid, holds 60fps more often, has less screen-tearing. The superior version on console.
Dirt 5: Again, the PS5 clearly outperforms SX and has a higher, more stable frame-rate in 60Hz mode. Both XSX and PS5, I believe have identical graphics quality and resolution in this mode, IIRC. SX has the advantage in the 120Hz mode but that's clearly due to downgraded graphics, and resolution (or a bug) on XSX so performance is smoother on SX whereas on PS5 it holds the target 120fps at least 90% of the time. A patch is on its way though.
COD: 120Hz mode - PS5 outperforms SX at identical graphics, and resolution. 60Hz mode is identical. SX doesn't outperform PS5 here as there's some sort of a bug that causes frame-rate to dip below 60fps randomly on PS5 in scenes where it previously did not. See below for stats and comparisons:
The frame-rate bug from two different sources (Digital Foundry & VG Tech):
So yeah, hence the phrase: "PS5 is outperforming XSX in nearly every game".
Lysandros
Member
PS5 is certainly not the 'weaker console' on whole GPU or system basis.
Riky
$MSFT
Everything is better on Xbox if you have VRR, it really is that simple.
geordiemp
Member
No we all do not know ps5 is the weaker console, TF is a metric used by those who dont want to consider how stuff works.
I always thought Ps5 was most likely the better designed silicon since i saw XSX hot chips with 14 CU shader arrays, clearly set up front end to feed the 4 shader arrays to run 4 games on server and CPU split miles apart in relative silicon distance on the die.
That is my opinion and has not changed since
Last edited:
Blood Borne
Member
No matter how you slice and dice it this is a massive fail for Xbox.
It has no exclusives and getting outperformed in multiplats. Whether it catches up or not is irrelevant. The main thing is the narrative is being set, “PS5 has more games” and “PS5 plays games better than XSX” “PS5 is the best place to play games”. Once the narrative has been cemented, whatever happens in late 2021 or 2022 won’t change much. The public will see PS5 as the better option, more sales thus more developers focusing on PS5.
XSX had to come out swinging from day one but they fucked it really bad. With no exclusives, they had just ONE job, “be the best place to play games” and even then they still messed up. Total failure and bad leadership on all fronts. Phil Spencer has failed woefully. Don Mattrick even did a better job, at least, Xbox software catalogue was way better under him than Phil.
It has no exclusives and getting outperformed in multiplats. Whether it catches up or not is irrelevant. The main thing is the narrative is being set, “PS5 has more games” and “PS5 plays games better than XSX” “PS5 is the best place to play games”. Once the narrative has been cemented, whatever happens in late 2021 or 2022 won’t change much. The public will see PS5 as the better option, more sales thus more developers focusing on PS5.
XSX had to come out swinging from day one but they fucked it really bad. With no exclusives, they had just ONE job, “be the best place to play games” and even then they still messed up. Total failure and bad leadership on all fronts. Phil Spencer has failed woefully. Don Mattrick even did a better job, at least, Xbox software catalogue was way better under him than Phil.
carlosrox
Banned
Sounds like the typical Sony riding.
Definitely is a narrative, I'll give you that.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
Last edited:
geordiemp
Member
The patches will likely lower the minimum resolution to 1200p or whatever on Valhalla as console gamers are not PC games with VRR Freesync monitors except very few.
On COD and dirt they will just lower the resolution in the 120 Hz mode
You will finally have your resolution disparity, problem is it will be the wrong way around for you.
Riky
$MSFT
You know all the patch details and results before release, incredible!
Like you knew PS5 was going to be the full RDNA2 console at the AMD reveal, like you knew PS4 games were going to load in one second on PS5.
I can't take anything you say seriously and neither should anyone else.
assurdum
Banned
If for you Tom Warren is a reliable "journalist" about tech stuff, I suggest to reconsider it very seriously. This guy is full gossip and bullshitness, don't have a clue of what he talking about. He is just interested to push the narrative about most powerful console ever released and nothing more. We need to be blind to not notice it. And by the way he never, never contacted reliable source when Sony stuff is involved, or the same Sony, most of his sources about ps5 are just fart in the wild, but he continues to spit out fud about it, the professional "journalist". He is just a sad and old fanboy without hope.
Last edited:
geordiemp
Member
You cannot bend physics, and as such you cannot make up for lost cycles when signals from one half of the CPU are located at other end of the die.
You canot change silicon now, and you cannot change those 14 CU too long shader arrays, if MS expended L1 and did something to comensate for the bigger LDS requirement when storing the half way processing stage in the shader arrays we would see it already. Not to mention optimising the front end waves to feed 14 CU instead of the usual 10.
This is hardware not software
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
geordiemp
Member
And yet I have not been wrong in the last 3 months and you have at every single turn. Dont believe me, I dont care.
I told you about hardware and TF and shader arrays and caches and you laughted. Thats fine. I really dont give a hoot of your opinion.
Again, remember to come back. Tick tock.
And I said ps4 games could load in 1 second, that is correct, I was talking about the new IO structure, and any game using it is doing 1-2 seconds. Not all games will, so what. Who cares.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
I guess if PS5 was FULL RDNA 2 it would be outperforming XSX by 40% instead of being just a small difference.
assurdum
Banned
Ignore list. Really why you waste your time. My list is full of such person
Last edited:
Riky
$MSFT
I've just quoted two occasions you were wrong, totally wrong
Have you got any link from Sony themselves about caches? Or is it just stuff you've picked up from B3D?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
geordiemp
Member
I've just quoted two occasions you were wrong, totally wrong
Have you got any link from Sony themselves about caches? Or is it just stuff you've picked up from B3D?
Go do your own work, its all in road to Ps5 and linking what was said to Sony / ND patents, looking at PC designwhite paper info RDNA1 and RDNA2 info vs XSX hotchips and driver released details on RDNA2.
Last edited:
Riky
$MSFT
I guess if PS5 was FULL RDNA 2 it would be outperforming XSX by 40% instead of being just a small difference.
I haven't seen any third party games that actually use those features yet, Dirt 5 does on PC but I haven't seen any confirmation that the XSX version does, so when those features are used we'll see what impact they have.
Gudji
Member
Riky
$MSFT
Just give me the link to the cache structure of the PS5 from Sony, then I will believe it, give me the link so I can look at it.
Last edited:
Riky
$MSFT
most of the games released are in superior v on PS5.
dev kits or not it won't change anything, you'll have to get used to it.
Tag was spot on
Riky
$MSFT
Everything is better on PS5, even if you don't have VRR and a $1500 TV.
*Excludes.
75% of DMC5
60hz mode on COD
120hz mode on Dirt 5
ZywyPL
Banned
most of the games released are in superior v on PS5.
dev kits or not it won't change anything, you'll have to get used to it.
You don't say...
Elog
Member
We know that modern GPUs are cache limited in terms of CU utilisation. A few data points:
- L3 (using Nvidia's terminology) cache per CU is a relevant metric, i.e. more CUs required more L3 cache to reach similar levels of utilisation (which ofc is always a little lower the more CUs you have due to parallelisation of work)
- AMD has shown with the 6xxx series of cards that 128 MB of L3 cache gives roughly a 20% increase in CU utilisation compared to a standard sized cache (roughly speaking)
- The first MBs of L3 cache gives a bigger performance boost than the last
We still do not know what size of L3 cache the PS5 has but as you can see it is quite easy to see a measurable performance boost unifying the CPU and GPU L3 caches everything else equal.
Please note that the XSX has a few factors in addition to this that lowers CU utilisation - unusually large shader arrays to ensure hardware based BC, smaller cache, lower pixel fill rate, more CUs, lower frequency etc.
It is really not that hard to put in reasonable assumptions for the factors we know and get to an 'actual' TFLOP number per second that is the same when comparing the two systems.
Most people do not realise that almost any GPU under 100% load only uses roughly 50% of its transistors, i.e. the 'actual' TFLOP number used to render the graphics you see is roughly half the theoretical peak TFPLOP number on your specifications sheet. Your design will then determine whether you (as an example) are closer to 45% in 'actual' or 55% in 'actual' - which corresponds to a 22% performance difference when measured (e.g. the reason why Vega 64 performs on par with 5700 xt despite having 30% higher peak TFLOPs).
Last edited:
assurdum
Banned
Come on now. They are not superior. Some stuff is more polished but call superior is exaggerated. I don't know even if most of the games is exactly a fair assumption.most of the games released are in superior v on PS5.
dev kits or not it won't change anything, you'll have to get used to it.
Last edited:
MilkyJoe
Member
You know how fast electrons move? I just copied Office 365 from my computer in the office in London to a computer at someone's house in Stevenage, via the data center in Slough in under 5 minutes, and you are saying a 1/4 inch on the same SoC is the issue...
Last edited:
SaucyJack
Member
Xbox Series S|X - Jam Tomorrow.
30yearsofhurt
Member
I'm nobody
Member
Enjoy ya false hope Xbox fans every gen u fall for it .
Also ps5 will get better over time
A trillion doller company still fucked up a launch
Also ps5 will get better over time
A trillion doller company still fucked up a launch
Radical_3d
Member
To be fair I’ll have ocasional drops to 90fps with good fidelity in Dirt 5 other than stable 120fps with iOS quality like in the SX. So is not an absolute win. As Leadbetter said, a drop in such high frame rates is not something you are going to notice like going from 60 to 30.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
1. DMC's 60 FPS has been patched.
2. 60hz mode on COD was just a bug. Restart checkpoint and no frame drops.
3. Locked 120 FPS except for 5 seconds on one map.
Saved you $1,500. Thank me later.
geordiemp
Member
Yes I am a physicist. We are talking clock cycles of 3.5 Ghz here, which is 0.3 nanoseconds.
Here is some light reading to put things in context of your 5 minutes.
These are the numbers every computer engineer should know
In 2010, Jeff Dean from Google gave a wonderful talk at Stanford that made him quite famous. In it, he discussed a few numbers that are relevant to computing systems. Then Peter Norvig published those numbers for the first time on the internet. Time passed, and the numbers changed. Here
www.freecodecamp.org
I am not saying that is THE issue, I am saying its not as efficient as the CPU located together on the die. Look up L1 vs L2 latency, only a bit closer on die but 400 % faster is typical.
I fact, the article gives you the latency of a CPU branch prediction issue at 3 nanoseconds, would be worse with split CPU on die. Does not sound allot, but thats > 100 clock cycles....
We dont know what is inefficient in XSX, I am just labelling the key suspects in my opinion, CPU halves and 14 CU shader arrays - I am leaning towards the latter actually but I dont design APUs so ho hum. You can have your opinion, thats fine.
Last edited:
Hopefully the game gets revisited when the patch hits....so some ppl will finally get the point.
If that patch gets it running on par with PS5....ok? That wasnt supposed to be the case. It was supposed to be the reverse.
That patch shouldnt reverse what was already done for PS5.
Hint: the performance delta is tiny as is in favor of PS5. So .....we looking for tiny in favor of Series X now after patches?
That was supposed to be the case from day one...
Similar threads
- Locked