Support NeoGAF

[MightySquirrel]

The key takeaway from the video is at 11m 50s.

Listen:





Effects on ps5 appear to be rendered at quarter resolution but full on pc thus making it an apple vs orange comparison as that setting alone at such high resolution [at 4k] could net you at least 10 % extra performance on pc.

 

[Md Ray]

Why are you comparing flops between AMD and Nvidia?

Plus. This game is like the Crysis situation. Does not matter the power of the pc, it will not use the power right if not coded properly.


They think things like SotC and Last Guardian with their shitty performance is wonderful, so no.

Games are wonderful, but yeah the performance, not so much. Especially the TLG's on PS4. But it's locked 60fps in TLG on PS5 if you have the disc version.

 

[rodrigolfp]

The key takeaway from the video is at 11m 50s.

Listen:





Effects on ps5 appear to be rendered at quarter resolution but full on pc thus making it an apple vs orange comparison as that setting alone at such high resolution [at 4k] could net you at least 10 % extra performance on pc.

but but... the miracle AMD RDNA2 special edition RIP Nvidia...

 

[onesvenus]

It had to do that to match the comparison... there is no way to increase these effects on PS5.

That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

 

[Bryank75]

There will not be a PS5 Pro until Sony is ready to cut the price of the current PS5. That won't be until 2023 or 2024, if ever. Sony is having a hard enough time making enough PS5s and getting them to market. Don't expect any new hardware from them for years.

If you really need more "power" than the PS5, which can run games at 4K@60 Hz, then try PC gaming. Its fun to discuss all the power & specs but they're not really the point of consoles. Its about affordable gaming for a mass audience. 1 simple box to buy for 6-8 years of fun.

Well, I am really a PlayStation gamer. They have what I want to play mostly. So if they brought out a 800 euro to 1000 euro machine, I'd really love that, they should have something for people willing to spend a bit more.

I still have a plan to get a rig for some strategy games and stuff that I like and I also wanted to do some art and stuff using pads attached to a rig. So, I'll be doing that.
Infact I think my brother should have just received his new rig, I must call over and check his out.

 

[kyliethicc]

Well, I am really a PlayStation gamer. They have what I want to play mostly. So if they brought out a 800 euro to 1000 euro machine, I'd really love that, they should have something for people willing to spend a bit more.

I still have a plan to get a rig for some strategy games and stuff that I like and I also wanted to do some art and stuff using pads attached to a rig. So, I'll be doing that.
Infact I think my brother should have just received his new rig, I must call over and check his out.

Yeah makes sense. I get that some people, maybe like 5 million or so, would buy a $/€1000 console. But the issue is is it worth it for Sony? And then how do they make it worth it for the buyers? It would need to have significant better versions of games, which devs might not want to make. So does Sony force devs to support it? etc..

 

[ethomaz]

That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Consoles have fixed settings?

 

[onesvenus]

Consoles have fixed settings?

That are lower than what's available on PC, exactly

 

[hououinkyouma00]

Best value without native m+kb, 21+:9, higher graphic settings, lower input lag? Nope.

That’s not value. They weren’t saying PC isn’t better overall. People are saying that for $400 you can’t beat it.

CPU might be the limiting factor here for 3070, just saying..... unless they do further test, no one knows

IDK looking at CPU comparisons the higher the resolution the less the CPU makes a difference. At 4K I doubt a 3700 would make more then maybe a few FPS difference.

 

[rodrigolfp]

That’s not value. They weren’t saying PC isn’t better overall. People are saying that for $400 you can’t beat it.

Why should a much more capable and versatile gaming machine beat or try to beat a 400$ one in price? When those cheaper machines allow us to do 100% of what a good pc can do, then pc should try to beat them.

 

[Bonfires Down]

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

PS5 is excellent value for money. I honestly felt like I was cheating Sony when I walked out of GameStop after dropping only $400 on my Digital Edition PS5. You can’t beat this performance at that price anywhere. The fact that it’s also able to beat the supposedly more powerful 12TFLOPS Series X in most multiplats is just wild and shows how much the PS5 punches above its weight. I also wasn’t expecting it to also pull RTX 2070S like performance as well, extremely impressive to say the least. Mark Cerny is a god .

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

Wait, they used a scene where it is known that a bug causes the PS5 frame to drop and by restarting runs at pretty much 60fps?

Do I have that right?

 

[hououinkyouma00]

Why should a much more capable and versatile gaming machine beat or try to beat a 400$ one in price? When those cheaper machines allow us to do 100% of what a good pc can do, then pc should try to beat them.

This going to go nowhere I can already tell.
This thread is a graphical comparison between a $400 machine and PCs. The poster mentioned best value in relation to the thread which is a graphical comparison once again where said $400 machine compared to a $500 GPU (before all this bullshit started at least) graphically.
Yes a PC with said GPU is more flexible, but if you only have $4-500 then you aren't going to build a PC unless all you play are eSports titles @ 1080p. Nobody argues that PCs aren't superior in many ways, but consoles have their place and have always been a good value for the majority of the population.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

Wait, they used a scene where it is known that a bug causes the PS5 frame to drop and by restarting runs at pretty much 60fps?

Do I have that right?

Yes, because otherwise they would not be getting a native 4K resolution. They can't turn on dynamic resolution on PC so the only way to get a "fair comparison" was to use the glitch.

 

[The Hamburglar]

Series X plays that scene at a locked 60fps, level with a 6800 XT. Tower of Power strikes again

I laughed the first time you used tower of power. Now your fanboyism has ruined a humorous joke.

congratz on winning one cutscene and losing to 95% of games out there I guess.

 

[FatKingBallman]

PS5 is excellent value for money. I honestly felt like I was cheating Sony when I walked out of GameStop after dropping only $400 on my Digital Edition PS5. You can’t beat this performance at that price anywhere. The fact that it’s also able to beat the supposedly more powerful 12TFLOPS Series X in most multiplats is just wild and shows how much the PS5 punches above its weight. I also wasn’t expecting it to also pull RTX 2070S like performance as well, extremely impressive to say the least. Mark Cerny is a god .

Remember when folks said that when Digital Foundry claimed you needed a 2080 Super to be on par with a PS5 in AC Valhalla, the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Curios too see what they are thinking now. LOL

 

[John Wick]

Yeah dynamic resolution is messing up most console vs PC comparisons, settings differences is another thing but DF and Alex did good here and PS5 owners should be impressed by what their $400-500 box is giving them.
I nearly upgraded my GPU to a 3070 recently because 3080 is impossible to find. Would’ve cost me about $800, and would’ve pissed me off after seeing this comparison. Going by this game it seems like DLSS is the only thing that card has that pulls it significantly ahead of a PS5.

If your buying a GPU a 3080 with 12gb or more would be ideal imo. 3090 is too much for the performance it brings over the 3080.

 

[rodrigolfp]

This going to go nowhere I can already tell.
This thread is a graphical comparison between a $400 machine and PCs. The poster mentioned best value in relation to the thread which is a graphical comparison once again where said $400 machine compared to a $500 GPU (before all this bullshit started at least) graphically.
Yes a PC with said GPU is more flexible, but if you only have $4-500 then you aren't going to build a PC unless all you play are eSports titles @ 1080p. Nobody argues that PCs aren't superior in many ways, but consoles have their place and have always been a good value for the majority of the population.

Value is not only for performance, as you are implying.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

Remember when folks said that when Digital Foundry claimed you needed a 2080 Super to be on par with a PS5 in AC Valhalla, the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Curios too see what they are thinking now. LOL

Some of them are in this thread still trying to damage control .

 

[rodrigolfp]

Remember when folks said that when Digital Foundry claimed you needed a 2080 Super to be on par with a PS5 in AC Valhalla, the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Curios too see what they are thinking now. LOL

The same, basically. Or you think AC games running at 30fps on weak jaguars and eating almost 100% of a powerful i7 to run at 45~60 is not poor optimization?

 

[ethomaz]

Wait, they used a scene where it is known that a bug causes the PS5 frame to drop and by restarting runs at pretty much 60fps?

Do I have that right?

It is only way to force native 4k for the comparison...
That is why the framerate drops.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

Value is not only for performance, as you are implying.

Did you even read my post? This thread is about performance. The post was (most likely) about performance. You are in a completely different conversation at this point and the same conversation that comes up every time somebody feels the needs to defend their platform of choice.

 

[M_A_C]

Wait, they used a scene where it is known that a bug causes the PS5 frame to drop and by restarting runs at pretty much 60fps?

Do I have that right?

Right? Maybe pick something that isn’t bugged?!?!? DF are a joke.

 

[FatKingBallman]

The same, basically. Or you think AC games running at 30fps on weak jaguars and eating almost 100% of a powerful i7 to run at 45~60 is not poor optimization?

They've compared it with PS5 which runs at 60fps, not with PS4.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Did you even read my post? This thread is about performance. The post was (most likely) about performance. You are in a completely different conversation at this point and the same conversation that comes up every time somebody feels the needs to defend their platform of choice.

Thread = performance, not value. And lol at platform of choice. Gladly I can have all platform I want and don't have to choose.

They've compared it with PS5, not with PS4.

ACO and Odyssey eats any i7 almost 100%. Talking about those. Should be the same on ACV.

 

[FatKingBallman]

ACO and Odyssey eats any i7 almost 100%. Talking about those. Should be the same on ACV.

Yes, PS5 runs at 60 fps in Performance mode which was on par with 2070 or 80 in DF comparison. Like i've said : the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Now COD comparison appeared and PS5 holds great against 30xx card..... What's the excuse now??

 

[rodrigolfp]

Yes, PS5 runs at 60 fps in Performance mode which was on par with 2070 or 80 in DF comparison. Like i've said : the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Now COD comparison appeared and PS5 holds great against 30xx card..... What's the excuse now??

The SAME, as I said earlier? Not the first CoD to perform bad on pc. It`s been like this since CoD Ghosts, if I remember well. BO3 still to this day have massive performance problems on PC.

 

[ethomaz]

Yes, PS5 runs at 60 fps in Performance mode which was on par with 2070 or 80 in DF comparison. Like i've said : the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Now COD comparison appeared and PS5 holds great against 30xx card..... What's the excuse now??

Seems like PC are still waiting the tools.
Tools are everything.

 

[FatKingBallman]

The SAME, as I said early? Not the first CoD to perform bad on pc. It`s been like this since CoD Ghosts, if I remember well. BO3 Still to this day have massive performance problems on PC.

BLOPS 3 was shit, yeah, but Advanced Warfare runs great on PC.

 

[rodrigolfp]

BLOPS 3 was shit, yeah, but Advanced Warfare runs great on PC.

Great as better then on PS4 on a pc with equivalent hardware? Good if yes.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

It would need to have significant better versions of games, which devs might not want to make. So does Sony force devs to support it? etc..

PC automatically has that built in. Best place to play multiplats for. People spend the money for the better experience. I don't see why people wouldn't for console. People did buy the pro and 1X, even though it still has a pretty bad cpu.... Why not give people an actual upgrade if they want to spend the money?

 

[GametimeUK]

PS5 is a beast in is pretty much on par with what you'd consider a high end PC (until 3080 and 3090 become more readily available). Incredible value for money to the point I'd actually recoend console to a lot of people over PC at the moment depending on what they're looking for. I genuinely think the box is THAT good.

There's a bunch of reasons to spend loads on a PC, but the performance alone is a hard sell at the moment.

 

[SplunkyMunkey]

Yes, PS5 runs at 60 fps in Performance mode which was on par with 2070 or 80 in DF comparison. Like i've said : the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Now COD comparison appeared and PS5 holds great against 30xx card..... What's the excuse now??

Same settings the ps5 is faster then a 2070s which i would put it with 2080 and 3070 level as its only 3fps slower against the 3070

 

[rodrigolfp]

PS5 is a beast in is pretty much on par with what you'd consider a high end PC (until 3080 and 3090 become more readily available). Incredible value for money to the point I'd actually recoend console to a lot of people over PC at the moment depending on what they're looking for. I genuinely think the box is THAT good.

There's a bunch of reasons to spend loads on a PC, but the performance alone is a hard sell at the moment.

Because pc gaming is only about performance on the same or better graphics settings for only CoD CW and ACV? Lol

 

[rodrigolfp]

Same settings the ps5 is faster then a 2070s which i would put it with 2080 and 3070 level as its only 3fps slower against the 3070

Not the same setting. There are settings on PS5 lower than the low on PC here.

 

[Knitted Knight]

Another video where it's the PS5 that's compared to PC. Seems like the performance delta difference is clear between the two next-gen consoles. To think the initial DF face-off analysis on the game was tried to be passed as a W for XSX on a "bug™" (their damage control "expertise"). We had to wait for NXGamer to clear the book on that - not the first time either eh? Clearly Alex knows better - as does everyone with a brain. The memo just don't register with some folks (some just simply refuse to register it). It's only appropriate to use the best performing platform to compare.

Folks on the PC space been feeling threatened hard since the PS5 launch. Can't stop talking about it; from the Youtube influencers that cater to PCMR ego's and whales (to sell that merch) to even Nvidia execs. Now why would that be? Kinda obvious folks on the PCMR space need to be reassured by their thought leaders that they aren't throwing money away at Nvidia for nothing - their business is too important. Consumer flight has to be prevented. What if they started to think outside the bubble? Terrifying.

But but... Cyberpunk . Just wait for a Sony banger from the top dogs and watch the chicken pen go crazy. We know it's coming. These meaningless, early multiplat comparisons continue to show a consistent close range of minimum floor performance. DirectStorage API better hurry up pronto before actual next-gen games start releasing on new/updated engines. I'm sure MS is working diligently around the clock on that.

 

[kyliethicc]

PC automatically has that built in. Best place to play multiplats for. People spend the money for the better experience. I don't see why people wouldn't for console. People did buy the pro and 1X, even though it still has a pretty bad cpu.... Why not give people an actual upgrade if they want to spend the money?

Actually devs have to make that work when coding their games for PC.

That's why inevitably some games on PC don't use high end CPUs to their fullest potential. Like some games won't use more than 8 cores etc. It still requires dev work to build a scalable game for lots of SKUs.

The issue for the $500 PS5 and a theoretical $700-$1000 super powerful premium PS5 Pro is this: Call of Duty has a 4K 60 option and a 120 Hz option on PS5 already. To justify the $700+ console's existence, would the console need to hit 240 Hz? 8K@120? No TV has 240 Hz refresh panels. HDMI 2.1 can't even do full fat HDR RGB 8K@60, it uses DSC. So would this console need to wait for a higher bandwidth HDMI 2.2 or 3.0? Is it the 8K console? PS5 already supports 8K TVs, unlike base PS4 which did not support 4K output.

There are diminishing returns to graphics. It could be gradual or it might be a cliff. Most console games don't use super high refresh small PC gaming monitors. 4K TVs cap out at 4K@120 for the next 3-5 years, or longer for most buyers. And console devs prefer having 1 simple system to code for. Etc..

Sony is not going to ben cutting the price of the PS5 for many years. So any PS5 Pro would be at a minimum either 1) $600+ or 2) many years away.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Yes, PS5 runs at 60 fps in Performance mode which was on par with 2070 or 80 in DF comparison. Like i've said : the biggest excuse was that AC games are notoriously poorly optimized on PC and favour consoles.

Now COD comparison appeared and PS5 holds great against 30xx card..... What's the excuse now??

These results prove how overall superior of a value PS5 vs a gaming PC is for gaming.

 

[DJ12]

I just spoke to him. He did use 10900K to be GPU bound with the 3070. Same for the other GPUs he tested: 3090, 2080 Ti, 6800 XT, etc.

So where is his comparison with those cards with a similar cpu. Guess that lead to the performance delta being much smaller so got thrown out in the edit, just like him mentioning he'd swapped out the 3600 he said he was using.

The results are disegenuios at best. I expect nothing else from df.

 

[MMaRsu]

Thread = performance, not value. And lol at platform of choice. Gladly I can have all platform I want and don't have to choose.


ACO and Odyssey eats any i7 almost 100%. Talking about those. Should be the same on ACV.

Yeah because Ubisoft has two DRM active at all times in the game. Denuvo is tied to camera and player movement. Unoptimised trash

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Actually devs have to make that work when coding their games for PC.

That's why inevitably some games on PC don't use high end CPUs to their fullest potential. Like some games won't use more than 8 cores etc. It still requires dev work to build a scalable game for lots of SKUs.

The issue for the $500 PS5 and a theoretical $700-$1000 super powerful premium PS5 Pro is this:

Call of Duty has a 4K 60 option and a 120 Hz option on PS5 already.

To justify the $700+ console's existence, would the console need to hit 240 Hz? 8K@120? No TV has 240 Hz refresh panels. HDMI 2.1 can't even do full fat HDR RGB 8K@60, it uses DSC.

So would this console need to wait for a higher bandwidth HDMI 2.2 or 3.0? Is it the 8K console? PS5 already supports 8K TVs, unlike base PS4 which did not support 4K output.

There are diminishing returns to graphics. It could be gradual or it might be a cliff. Most console games don't use super high refresh small PC gaming monitors. 4K TVs cap out at 4K@120 for the next 3-5 years, or longer for most buyers.

And console devs prefer having 1 simple system to code for. Etc..

Sony is not going to ben cutting the price of the PS5 for many years. So any PS5 Pro would be at a minimum either 1) $600+ or 2) many years away.

Simply put, even with the same exact framerate of 60, 144, etc, I would pay the extra money to get higher resolution, raytracing, better effects, etc. So yes people would, and people do spend extra for "diminishing returns". Raytracing, high framerate, added graphical effects, higher resolution textures, etc, won't exactly change a game per se, but it sure does make it more immersive by a long shot.

Devs don't necessarily go out of their way, and work harder for the PC version. More so that is what they can achieve their vision on as far as hardware, and they can make the appropriate cuts to console version to make it run at stable framerates.

 

[BlueXImpulse]

Sony are doing everything right.

 

[The_Mike]

People who thought ps5 could match high end PCs


Lol at thinking ps5 can match a high end pc. Great value for money, but you get what you pay for.

Theres a reason a high end PC has a higher price tag

 

[Shmunter]

Anyone else on PS5 noticing way more frame drops in multiplayer? Starting to chug and dripping will below 30 FPS regularly.

Yeah it’s likely the same bug as it occurs randomly, especially at the beginning of the match. The fact it hasn’t been fixed is a disgrace.

 

[Neo_Geo]

Haven't watched the comparison, but let me guess. The Playstation 5 isn't running everything on Ultra?

 

[rodrigolfp]

Yeah because Ubisoft has two DRM active at all times in the game. Denuvo is tied to camera and player movement. Unoptimised trash

fuck denuvo, but I don't think it is the only one to blame.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Haven't watched the comparison, but let me guess. The Playstation 5 isn't running everything on Ultra?

Far from that, but lets ignore for the sake of liking the PS5 more.

 

[Shmunter]

Keeping in mind the game is still a cross gen effort & spread between numerous sku’s.

Likely leveraging nothing but brute force only. Not tailored or optimised for next gen feature set such as ssd or programmable hardware geometry pipeline.

It’s only the beginning.

 

[kyliethicc]

Simply put, even with the same exact framerate of 60, 144, etc, I would pay the extra money to get higher resolution, raytracing, better effects, etc. So yes people would, and people do spend extra for "diminishing returns". Raytracing, high framerate, added graphical effects, higher resolution textures, etc, won't exactly change a game per se, but it sure does make it more immersive by a long shot.

Devs don't necessarily go out of their way, and work harder for the PC version. More so that is what they can achieve their vision on as far as hardware, and they can make the appropriate cuts to console version to make it run at stable framerates.

Sure you might buy it, and some devs might like having another system to code for, but Sony might not want to have to force their devs to code for 2 systems again.. yet.

And how many people would actually buy this more powerful console? The Switch shows specs don't matter. Base PS4 outsold the Pro significantly. Sony only do this stuff if its worth it financially.

To be clear, its likely that a PS5 Pro will be made eventually, but I doubt it will be priced any higher. It will probably be $500 and ship in 2024, and serve as the higher priced SKU when Sony do their PS5 refresh, alongside a PS5 DE Slim for $300.

Sony will eventually want a $300 PS5 Digital SKU, and will still want a $500 SKU. That could just be a PS5 disc model with 1.65 TB SSD, while the $400 SKU could be the DE with 1.65 TB or it could be a cheaper slim disc model, etc.