Sure but remember that after the last patch AC Valhalla runs at up to 60% higher resolution on PS5. Yep, higher than Hitman 3 difference (44%). You didn't see DF writing about that, is that why you missed it? Well, VGTech didn't miss it.Valhalla has a better framerate on Series X now once they adjusted the resolution scaler actually.
As for Call Of Duty in 60hz mode again the Xbox was slightly better.
Facts matter.
DF conveniently missed the reduced smoke effect from the gun (when everyone else immediatly saw it) and said the lack of muzzle light was a "bug" on XSX. You buy that?
I agree. We know for a fact that there isn't a perfect/linear scaling with the number processors/CUs, with each additional CU the efficiency per CU drops even if it's only a few percent. Besides, i have hard time seeing how PS5 wouldn't have a higher CU saturation in average due to faster and more continious data flow with its individual CUs having significantly more L1 (%40) / L2 (14%) caches available at 22% higher bandwidth and the inclusion of Cache Scrubbers. Faster asynchronous shader and compute scheduling due to the Command Processor/ACEs/HWS running at 22% higher frequency shouldn't hurt either. The real difference in compute can only be lower than 18%.
Then they were lying, the shadows were different and there were missing transparency effects. Could've been a bug but they weren't the same. Also missing birds lol #BirdGate
What about the birds? The birds, Mason?
ask him how does hitman 3 have more graphical effects and settings on ps4 pro than xbox one x and series s, if hitman 3 is a benchmark then it means ps4 pro is more powerful than xbox one x and series s, since they like roosting tools/bugs like chicken whenever series x performs poorely but call it a benchmark when ps5 doesnt,
So this is what it's come to.Valhalla has a better framerate on Series X now once they adjusted the resolution scaler actually.
As for Call Of Duty in 60hz mode again the Xbox was slightly better.
Facts matter.
We alrady have a thread for it
Same. To me it sounds like the devs just don't want to spend time dealing with another console. It also might be depending on the engine. Something like Unreal Engine is almost endlessly scalable. Maybe Remedy engine is shit.
This should be stickied somewhere, lol. I remember some of us mentioning some of this.
And skeeted emoji obsessions.
Polygon throughput can also be a problem besides the RAM amount and bandwidth, XSS is one SE design with only half the number of Prim units and rasterizers compared to PS5/XSX. And those blocks run at significantly lower frequency lowering the geometry processing further.
Would be something else if Valhalla would have worst average fps when it can be lowered at 1080p on series X...and dat FPS advantage in BLOPS with that juicy 0,01% and 1 FPS of difference in some spots. But I guess dignity goes to fuck itself when we have to find any sort of multiplat advantage...Valhalla has a better framerate on Series X now once they adjusted the resolution scaler actually.
As for Call Of Duty in 60hz mode again the Xbox was slightly better.
Facts matter.
I didnt go into detail like these things, but all of these issues always existed on PC since forever and there it works.
If Sony can solve the supply problem, then near the holidays would be the perfect time to release Horizon, but only if they show gameplay till June/July.
To be precise, every downclock has a negative impact even if leads to just 1% performance loose.
They never said a missing light source! some lie this is, series x simply had poor raytracing on cod than ps5 and the missing alpha effects on guns where there for everyone to see.
The 36 cu's are not a hypothethis they are real so i dont get your point there. and the variable clocks dont with a 1.8ghz fixed clock is even more confusing what fo you mean here?
To be precise, every downclock has a negative impact even if leads to just 1% performance loose.
You obviously can argue that this "worst case" of only having 18% TF advantage on the Xbox Series X is the usual case but It's simply not guaranted that the PS5 GPU is running at 2.23GHz all the time.
Since we don't have clock numbers we can't tell if current games are already here and there a bit below the 2.23 GHz mark and if not, how many next gen games will put the clocks down?
Mark Cerny was stating that they expect the GPU to run most of its time at or "close" to that frequency and when downclocking occurs that they expect it to be pretty "minor".
Another statement was saying that to reduce power by 10% it only takes a couple of percent of lower clock speeds.
However all of that is of course not very precise and is based on "expectations", even if they are coming from Sony.
It's not like companies are right all the time or don't inject a bit of (too) optimistic marketing.
Now based on the claims and how it should fare, I wouldn't expect major downclocking to occur but next gen games, which also stress the CPU, could pass the treshold and consistently lower the clocks.
On avg. the PS5 might run at 2.15 GHz in one game, 2.07 GHz in another.
Maybe the TF advantage will go from 18% to 20%, would that be a major difference?
Obviously no, but it ties back to my initial statement that 18% is the worst case, it can't be worse than that but it can be better, without stating that it could be much better.
Just to share my perspective on here.
Hmmm ...
To be precise, every downclock has a negative impact even if leads to just 1% performance loose.
You obviously can argue that this "worst case" of only having 18% TF advantage on the Xbox Series X is the usual case but It's simply not guaranted that the PS5 GPU is running at 2.23GHz all the time.
Since we don't have clock numbers we can't tell if current games are already here and there a bit below the 2.23 GHz mark and if not, how many next gen games will put the clocks down?
Mark Cerny was stating that they expect the GPU to run most of its time at or "close" to that frequency and when downclocking occurs that they expect it to be pretty "minor".
Another statement was saying that to reduce power by 10% it only takes a couple of percent of lower clock speeds.
However all of that is of course not very precise and is based on "expectations", even if they are coming from Sony.
It's not like companies are right all the time or don't inject a bit of (too) optimistic marketing.
Now based on the claims and how it should fare, I wouldn't expect major downclocking to occur but next gen games, which also stress the CPU, could pass the treshold and consistently lower the clocks.
On avg. the PS5 might run at 2.15 GHz in one game, 2.07 GHz in another.
Maybe the TF advantage will go from 18% to 20%, would that be a major difference?
Obviously no, but it ties back to my initial statement that 18% is the worst case, it can't be worse than that but it can be better, without stating that it could be much better.
Just to share my perspective on here.
Yep, WS is good, but it’s not Atmos good spec wise. Nor is it close to Tempest which Tempest is at minimum comparable to Atmos, at least on paper.
Saying again" as if youve ever proved me wrong what a classic lier, a missing light source has no effect on the resolution or quality of your raytraced shadows, you can have a 100 light sources but if your raytracing has lower quality or uses less samples or a poorer denoiser its not going to change a thing. Im not saying the series x has less raytracing capabilities im just saying the settings they used on series x cod cold war are less than ps5s due to tools or whatever god knows.
Smaller bricks on the Series S
There's a One X version of Skyrim, it's 4k 30fps. Series S uses the One S versions of BC games.
