• 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.

Can we have a civil, non-fanboy debate about the console power difference?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gamer79

Predicts the worst decade for Sony starting 2022
*Mods if this turns into your typical Pony Boy vs Xbot thread, please shut it down

I want to talk about results and why the numbers do not match up. I have a fair understanding of hardware but do not understand why the results are the way they are.

The Xbox series X on paper is roughly 20% more powerful than the PS5 from that teraflop number. I know teraflops are not the be all to system power but in the case of these 2 machines it is. They both use the same chipset and almost the same architecture. My main problem with this is we do not see these results in the games. In fact, one could easily argue that the best looking games are on the Playstation 5. Many 3rd party games also run better on the Playstation 5.

I am not a very smart man but do know that 12 is much greater than 10. We should see a pretty big upgrade on series X games vs ps5 games but we do not. My only line of thought is the Series S holding the X back. Microsoft has the most powerful machine but the results do not show that in many peoples eyes. What are your thoughts on this? These machines are simply underpowered to meet 4k/60 but a 20% difference could get them much closer to that mark. If the series S is gimping the X, it makes the power difference moot.
 
Last edited:

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
No Way Commando GIF by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
Isn't it already established that PS5 and Series X have similar performance, with both having strengths and weaknesses that ultimately even the score?

It's like beating a dead horse over and over.
 

kiphalfton

Member
The console power debate, can never not happen without making it a dick swinging competition.

That is just the natural order of things.
 
What's there to discuss? It was discussed to death before they came out.

Riky said series s would be toe to toe with ps5.

Turns out series X and ps5 have been identical in cross games more or less.

Everything from blaming Devs to poor tools have been used to explain why series X hasn't pulled in front of ps5. In the end they're the same and the exclusives for Xbox have no where near matched any ps5 game on a technical level.

On paper means nothing.
 
My only line of thought is the Series S holding the X back.
Probably a part of it.

And also just how much studios care about it, and Sony obviously puts a ton of emphasis on graphics and optimization. PC's have always been more powerful than consoles, yet I remember when UC4 came out it was being talked about as the best looking game ever. It's not like the specs to achieve those graphics hadn't been around forever, but someone still had to do it. And now Sony first party regularly sets IQ benchmarks with their first party games despite being 'restricted' to the console specs.
 

Arsic

Loves his juicy stink trail scent
What's there to discuss? It was discussed to death before they came out.

Riky said series s would be toe to toe with ps5.

Turns out series X and ps5 have been identical in cross games more or less.

Everything from blaming Devs to poor tools have been used to explain why series X hasn't pulled in front of ps5. In the end they're the same and the exclusives for Xbox have no where near matched any ps5 game on a technical level.

On paper means nothing.

With all the acquisitions Xbox had now, why isn’t a single game technically as impressive as Horizon 2 which is a cross gen game , or the upcoming Spider-Man 2?

Surely one of these studios has the talent and know how to push the box to its limit.

After this year I’m pretty skeptical Hellblade 2 will even be that game. Likely a 30fps upscale job for a 8 hour long on rails game.

I’d love to be wrong though.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
I know teraflops are not the be all to system power but in the case of these 2 machines it is.
That's where you're wrong.

As you said, TF is just one part; it is also theoretical and dependent on many other things. Besides, the PS5's GPU is actually ahead of Series X's GPU in culling, rasterization, pixel fill rate etc. by 20%, if I recall correctly.

Then PS5 also has 300% more powerful HW decompressors that minimize the load of CPU, and some of that power can be shifted to GPU with SmartShift which Xbox doesn't have.

Then comes the SSD.

Then the lower-level APIs of PS5.

There are numerous variables at play. Going by TF count is extremely rudimentary and the reason why so many people still get confused when they see PS5 outperforming XSX.
 
Last edited:
Yep basically this, and they've often been so close that there's not really a "winner"

Comparisons have been mostly boring. When people struggle to find differences that means the two are pretty much the same. This is nothing like Pro vs X where the X had huge differences in games.
 

Fbh

Member
Eh, honestly 3 years into this gen I'd say the power difference is irrelevant.
In some games Ps5 is a bit better, in others SX is a bit better. In most cases you get a similar experience on both consoles. We aren't seeing one system consistently getting 10+fps or notoriously better resolution and visuals than the other.

If you've got both system, sure, check out Digital foundry to decide which version of the game to get. Otherwise I'd say the power and performance is pretty irrelevant when deciding which console to get.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
It's 18% difference. In a 30 fps game, that means 5 fps difference. Since most games are locked at 30 fps, you will almost never see this. in terms of resolution, if something is 1440p, this would mean 1620p at best.

And we do see that kind of difference in some games. Certain games do run better on xbox. in line with the tflops difference.

some games dont because PS5 has its own advantages like higher clocks which can run some game effects better. Also, MS chose to increase the gpu size without ever increasing other things the gpu that size needs to work efficiently. that helped them win the tflops war, and some game comparisons, but overall, that decision to increase the Compute Units and holding back clock speeds is likely going to result in similar comparisons going forward for the rest of the gen.

Having split ram and directx overhead likely doesnt help.
 
Last edited:
The power difference is difficult to notice. When it even exists, it typically translates into slightly higher average resolutions or a more consistent framerate. Most people would struggle to see any difference, even with both versions running side-by-side. Typically we have seen in-game settings a match between console versions.

The largest differences have usually come in the form of bugs that have been quickly patched. The trouble Xbox finds itself in now is due to being in the minority market position. Devs may decide to focus more resource on the PS version as that is where the majority of the sales will come from. This may also cause the devs to ignore Xbox specific technologies as there is less value in adopting them i.e. mesh shaders, SFS, VRS2, DirectML etc.
 

zeldaring

Banned
Eh, honestly 3 years into this gen I'd say the power difference is irrelevant.
In some games Ps5 is a bit better, in others SX is a bit better. In most cases you get a similar experience on both consoles. We aren't seeing one system consistently getting 10+fps or notoriously better resolution and visuals than the other.

If you've got both system, sure, check out Digital foundry to decide which version of the game to get. Otherwise I'd say the power and performance is pretty irrelevant when deciding which console to get.
I would say both systems are on par.
 

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
Comparisons have been mostly boring. When people struggle to find differences that means the two are pretty much the same. This is nothing like Pro vs X where the X had huge differences in games.
Yep and arguing about .2 fps average or 100s of pixels before reconstruction is pretty stupid.
 

Skifi28

Member
There is no power difference, just advantages and disadvantages. The mistake is using a single theoretical number of part of the GPU to paint a picture about the entirety of a complicated piece of hardware and software.
 
Yep and arguing about .2 fps average or 100s of pixels before reconstruction is pretty stupid.

I guess what bothers me the most is the full activation claim. The one where people say the XSX isn't fully activated so it isn't destroying the PS5 in comparisons. They keep telling us to wait but it never happens.
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Rdna 2 has a known issue of topping out cores in most situations. They just don’t scale well past a certain utilization.That’s one reason .

Sony went with a more expensive cooling method to get higher clocks. That’s another reason.

Sonys os is much more efficient according to a few known dev comments. Which is another reason.

All of these little things add up and even the playing field in terms of performance.
 
Last edited:

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
I guess what bothers me the most is the full activation claim. The one where people say the XSX isn't fully activated so it isn't destroying the PS5 in comparisons. They keep telling us to wait but it never happens.
That's because we've been infiltrated by misterxmedia's alts...
For those unaware he was claiming that the Xbox one had a second GPU not activated for reasons, he gotr called out and now hates gaf.
 
Rdna 2 has a known issue of topping out cores in most situations. They just don’t scale well past a certain utilization.That’s one reason .

Sony went with a more expensive cooling method to get higher clocks. That’s another reason.

Sonys os is much more efficient according to a few known dev comments. Which is another reason.

All of these little things add up and even the playing field in terms of performance.

To be fair both of them have expensive cooling solutions. Microsoft went with vapor cooling while Sony went with a large heat sink. But Sony did reduce their heat sink over the years so I assume its cheaper than the launch model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom