Support NeoGAF

[wordslaughter]

I am not sure if youve ever used a boost mode on a modern video card but those speeds are held pretty much consistently.
I guess you must know better than cerny who said the worst case would be a few percent. So a few percent might be what... dropping from 10.3 to 10.2?

And yet.. I notice you think you can lock at 60 with no dips with 12TF but think losing 15% of your floating point operation equals dropping 30% of your performance.
That doesnt add up.

The GPU in the PS5 does NOT behave like a GPU in a PC. It behaves more like a GPU in a laptop, load balancing within strict power-envelopes.

My PC does not have to lower the GPU clock if my CPU is being pushed. And neither does the XSX. The PS5 does.

 

[Stuart360]

Oh for sure, it will be fully utilized too.

So Halo Infinite is representative of evey game coming to XSX, first and third party?.
Besides you realize Craig doesnt have quite the same impact now as it did a couple of weeks ago.

This very innocent question by the OP seems to have really rattled you.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Im giving you examples of real world power differences. And its not "crap" its literal truth as anyone who has EVER enabled VSYNC on a PC would know perfectly well.

The Xbox series X has yet to show any game loading in a second or two.... as opposed to the rumors of the PS5 loading games like Kena in a few seconds menu to in-game
or moving between areas in spiderman in less than a second.

I said that "crap" because it had nothing at all to do with what I said, but you said that I said it, not because it was wrong.

The bolded bit is hilarious lol. The "rumour" was that a cold boot of Kena took 2 seconds - which isn't amazing. A cold boot isn't loading 16GB of assets and code into RAM. A cold boot is loading a background image and menu lol.

"Moving between areas in spiderman in less than a second".......we've had games that move between areas in less than a second for generations lol.

Literally no PC gamer is going to buy a new video card for a 15 percent increase in floating point at the cost of fill rate....

They may however upgrade from a PCIE 3.0 SSD to a PCIE 4.0 SSD for double the transfer speed.

What about for significantly better ray tracing as well? It's 20% btw (10 vs 12). There's a reason that GPU companies have been going "wider" rather than faster. Everything is going more asynchronous and multi-threaded, and wider helps much more with that. Games aren't just single threads anymore.

 

[loktaiextatus]

The GPU in the PS5 does NOT behave like a GPU in a PC. It behaves more like a GPU in a laptop.

My PC does not have to lower the GPU clock if my CPU is being pushed. And neither does the XSX. The PS5 does.

What makes you think that? Sony hasnt said so. Its not a thermal throttle (per sony).... and literally said it is
at a full 10.28 almost all of the time. Thats its design, thats how it works. You assert without evidence that the part
does not work as advertised but.... games seem to be running fine. Do they look choppy? Does the frame rate TANK
suddenly at any point? I havent seen any evidence of that in the gameplay footage.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

A lot of crystal balls in this thread.

 

[MrFunSocks]

What makes you think that? Sony hasnt said so. Its not a thermal throttle (per sony).... and literally said it is
at a full 10.28 almost all of the time. Thats its design, thats how it works. You assert without evidence that the part
does not work as advertised but.... games seem to be running fine. Do they look choppy? Does the frame rate TANK
suddenly at any point? I havent seen any evidence of that in the gameplay footage.

The PS5 CPU and GPU cannot both be maxed out at the same time, Sony confirmed that. If they could then they would be locked at their speeds.

With the Xbox developers know the clock speed is consistent the whole time. Never changes. With the PS5 they have to account for that, and be aware that they will not always have that 10.28TF of power available. Sometimes they will have less than 10TF available. If a game is stressing the CPU constantly then the game will not have the full power of the GPU available to it on the PS5. On the Series X this is never a problem and not even a consideration to be made for devs.

 

[Danjin44]

I choose which system to get solely based on games, tech is really doesn't matter to me.

I mean lets just say Xbox is 100 times more powerful and even has faster loads times but if Playstation get games like Dragon Quest XII but Xbox doesn't get them then I'm most likely going to get Playstation. It basically how it was for me when I got Playstation 2, sure it was weaker than Xbox and Gamecube but it had more games I want to play and in the end that my number one reason for getting any video game system.

 

[Jtibh]

I dotnknow what to vote here when i havent seen anything on either console.

I havent seen which one is faster or which one is more powerfull.

Cant believe we preorder like idiots with little to no info.

 

[loktaiextatus]

I said that "crap" because it had nothing at all to do with what I said, but you said that I said it, not because it was wrong.

The bolded bit is hilarious lol. The "rumour" was that a cold boot of Kena took 2 seconds - which isn't amazing. A cold boot isn't loading 16GB of assets and code into RAM. A cold boot is loading a background image and menu lol.

"Moving between areas in spiderman in less than a second".......we've had games that move between areas in less than a second for generations lol.

Actually, the rumor was assumed to be into the game, but given that its a rumor it was quickly re-assumed to be to menu because it seemed so fast.
Meanwhile we have spiderman, a game that started life on PS4, and demons souls - quick traveling literally essentially instantly,
and ratchet and clank loading entire areas in a second, and these are launch window titles. Those are showing a lot of I/O and very fast.

I would go as far as to say that we have more evidence of PS5's I/O being great than we do of the XBOX Series X GPU , given that until this point almost nothing
was shown running on the actual machine.

Let me be very clear, if it comes out and in more than some fringe instance its bashing the PS5 over the head in every conceivable way I am not going to dig my
heels in and pretend it isnt happening. I also wont pretend I wouldnt be counting the seconds of load time. I have the one X and the Pro now, today, in my livingroom
and I dont give a damn, but if the graphical difference between the new consoles is the same as the current machines but cut in half as the numbers would dictate
then I have to say, I am more interested in what the I/O can do for game design and what it means for feeling like Im playing on a cartridge again, because young guys
dont remember that but it was the worst torment going from the 16 bit cart systems to the 16 and 32 bit CD systems. It was like part of the fun of gaming died.

 

[wordslaughter]

What makes you think that? Sony hasnt said so. Its not a thermal throttle (per sony).... and literally said it is
at a full 10.28 almost all of the time. Thats its design, thats how it works. You assert without evidence that the part
does not work as advertised but.... games seem to be running fine. Do they look choppy? Does the frame rate TANK
suddenly at any point? I havent seen any evidence of that in the gameplay footage.

It's not a thermal throttle AFAIK, it's a non-fixed frrequency operating within a power envelope that's shared between the CPU and GPU. That's exactly what Cerny said.

Yeah, "most of the time" whatever that means.

The rest of your comments have nothing to do with anything. The point is that the PS5's TFLOP rating is NOT a locked 10.2TFLOPS while the XSX's 12.2 is.

 

[loktaiextatus]

The PS5 CPU and GPU cannot both be maxed out at the same time, Sony confirmed that. If they could then they would be locked at their speeds.

With the Xbox developers know the clock speed is consistent the whole time. Never changes. With the PS5 they have to account for that, and be aware that they will not always have that 10.28TF of power available. Sometimes they will have less than 10TF available. If a game is stressing the CPU constantly then the game will not have the full power of the GPU available to it on the PS5. On the Series X this is never a problem and not even a consideration to be made for devs.

Just asking, sources on this? I havent seen any dev saying "We have to account for when the power of the PS5 drops notably when we use the CPU". Havent seen it.

 

[Kumomeme]

CHOOSE

Spoiler

 

[loktaiextatus]

It's not a thermal throttle AFAIK, it's a non-fixed frrequency operating within a power envelope that's shared between the CPU and GPU. That's exactly what Cerny said.

Yeah, "most of the time" whatever that means.

The rest of your comments have nothing to do with anything. The point is that the PS5's TFLOP rating is NOT a locked 10.2TFLOPS while the XSX's 12.2 is.

10.3 if you're already going to insist "not locked, not locked" and so give it the 10.3. And I'll give in to the more liberal round up to 12.2.
You're thinking "What does it matter, 10.2 to 10.3... why is he so insistent , it doesnt help his argument"

And there you have it, TF dont matter suddenly when you can just shave them whichever way you want.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting and the PS5 is showing great, consistent, fast and smooth gameplay without any kind of
dips or hickups I can see.

Again- maybe in mid november we know something else, but today we have no reason to think the PS5 suffers from any performance hickups.

 

[Sejan]

I don’t think there will be a big enough difference in power to notice unless you are directly comparing them. Similarly, I doubt the loading difference will be very noticeable unless you are comparing them head to head. At this point, the biggest decider should be what eco system you want to be a part of.

 

[wordslaughter]

Spoiler

LOL you're so frantic and desperate right now.

 

[itsnotme]

Every game announced so far has the same resolution and frame rate on both consoles, yes the Xbox may be able to add more particles and flowers in the background but there's no real need for that, at least imo it's not a significant enough of a difference for me to choose it over having half the loading times (potentially). Games taking 1 minute on one can take 30 seconds on the other. It's just a higher quality of living which is provided by this speed difference rather than the TFLOPS difference. If we do start seeing perform significantly better on Xbox then I'll pick that but until then it's the SSD for me

 

[loktaiextatus]

LOL you're so frantic and desperate right now.

So frantic I forgot to hit reply on the comment and just replied to the whole thread?

Ah.. no... thats you.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Actually, the rumor was assumed to be into the game, but given that its a rumor it was quickly assumed to be to menu.
Meanwhile we have spiderman, a game that started life on PS4, and demons souls - quick traveling literally essentially instantly,
and ratchet and clank loading entire areas in a second, and these are launch window titles. Those are showing a lot of I/O and very fast.

I would go as far as to say that we have more evidence of PS5's I/O being great than we do of the XBOX Series X GPU , given that until this point almost nothing
was shown running on the actual machine.

Let me be very clear, if it comes out and in more than some fringe instance its bashing the PS5 over the head in every conceivable way I am not going to dig my
heels in and pretend it isnt happening. I also wont pretend I wouldnt be counting the seconds of load time. I have the one X and the Pro now, today, in my livingroom
and I dont give a damn, but if the graphical difference between the new consoles is the same as the current machines but cut in half as the numbers would dictate
then I have to say, I am more interested in what the I/O can do for game design and what it means for feeling like Im playing on a cartridge again, because young guys
dont remember that but it was the worst torment going from the 16 bit cart systems to the 16 and 32 bit CD systems. It was like part of the fun of gaming died.

No the person that said the thing about Kena loading said it was cold boot. You can't cold boot directly in to the middle of gameplay lol. You cold boot to the menu.

You have no idea how quick travel is working - you could simply be quick travelling to places that are already in RAM. Saying Spiderman and Demons souls have quick travel doesn't prove anything. And even if it did - you're saying that its "literally essentially instantly", which would then mean that on the Series X it will still be "literally essentially instantly". Don't you realise that the more you say how PS5 will do something "instantly" in regards to loading the less of an advantage that gives the PS5 over the Series X in terms of loading because at half the speed it means the Series X will still load essentially instantly.

Lol at having more evidence of PS5's IO being great. We still haven't seen anyone have an actual hands on with a PS5 or actually see games running on it in person.

I grew up playing on Ataris and the like too, I know the pain that moving to CD's brought with it. But with this generation the difference between loading times for the 2 consoles is borderline negligible because while on paper yes 9gb/s is a lot more than 4.5gb/s, in actual real world usage they're both far faster than any games have ever needed.

Just asking, sources on this? I havent seen any dev saying "We have to account for when the power of the PS5 drops notably when we use the CPU". Havent seen it.

Jesus Cerny himself literally said it in the PS5 presentations. You cannot use 100% of the CPU power and 100% of the GPU power at the same time. That's literally the design they went with. Devs cannot count on always having 10.28TF available because with the variable frequency it does not happen. Even a like 3% drop in the frequency takes the power to under 10TF.

 

[loktaiextatus]

No the person that said the thing about Kena loading said it was cold boot. You can't cold boot directly in to the middle of gameplay lol. You cold boot to the menu.

You have no idea how quick travel is working - you could simply be quick travelling to places that are already in RAM. Saying Spiderman and Demons souls have quick travel doesn't prove anything. And even if it did - you're saying that its "literally essentially instantly", which would then mean that on the Series X it will still be "literally essentially instantly". Don't you realise that the more you say how PS5 will do something "instantly" in regards to loading the less of an advantage that gives the PS5 over the Series X in terms of loading because at half the speed it means the Series X will still load essentially instantly.

Lol at having more evidence of PS5's IO being great. We still haven't seen anyone have an actual hands on with a PS5 or actually see games running on it in person.

I grew up playing on Ataris and the like too, I know the pain that moving to CD's brought with it. But with this generation the difference between loading times for the 2 consoles is borderline negligible because while on paper yes 9gb/s is a lot more than 4.5gb/s, in actual real world usage they're both far faster than any games have ever needed.

So now you're defining cold boot. in PC terms it means from a no power state, in games it just means we arent resuming, we're loading it fresh, nobody said what kind of boot it was. You can boot into the menu then into gameplay, or you could be loading a snapshot, the PS5 is also known to be able to jump right into sections or modes of a game from the menu so, its all on the table.

Dont open the can of worms of "its faster than what we've needed" because ONCE ITS THERE its all on the table. We moved from floppy disk based games with 2-3 of them, and carts (chrono trigger is 3mb) and the very next generation as soon as we HAD the CD to load from the games blew up into the literal gigabyte range . Chrono trigger and final fantasy 7 ARE TWO YEARS APART. Think about that.

 

[HoodWinked]

it will be fun to see people starting to pivot to what actually matters.

when the side by sides start coming out all of sudden people will be like who cares about frame rate.

then over emphasize load times, and pointing out indistinguishable differences in far distant LoD texture because they load in marginally faster.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Jesus Cerny himself literally said it in the PS5 presentations. You cannot use 100% of the CPU power and 100% of the GPU power at the same time. That's literally the design they went with. Devs cannot count on always having 10.28TF available because with the variable frequency it does not happen. Even a like 3% drop in the frequency takes the power to under 10TF.

I think the issue here is you're confusing the way CPU and GPU are used.

CPUs do not sit at 100% while gaming.
Most of the time, they sit around 30-50 percent under intense loads and they scale as needed.

The instance when you would max out a GPU and a CPU to 100% would cause so much stuttering and shittiness that its not even worth imagining how you'd manage it.

 

[MrFunSocks]

So now you're defining cold boot. in PC terms it means from a no power state, in games it just means we arent resuming, we're loading it fresh, nobody said what kind of boot it was. You can boot into the menu then into gameplay, or you could be loading a snapshot, the PS5 is also known to be able to jump right into sections or modes of a game from the menu so, its all on the table.

Dont open the can of worms of "its faster than what we've needed" because ONCE ITS THERE its all on the table. We moved from floppy disk based games with 2-3 of them, and carts (chrono trigger is 3mb) and the very next generation as soon as we HAD the CD to load from the games blew up into the literal gigabyte range . Chrono trigger and final fantasy 7 ARE TWO YEARS APART. Think about that.

I'm not defining cold boot lol. Opening a game that isn't open is a cold boot, has been forever on consoles. The PS5 is also known to be able to jump right into sections or modes of a game? Really? Where have you seen this in action? The fact is that if the PS5 can load something in a quarter of a second, the Series X can do it in at most half a second. That's what I'm saying - the better the loading is on the PS5, the less of an advantage it is because the Series X will load ~50% slower, so if 50% is 40 seconds that's bad, but if 50% is 0.2 milliseconds then there's no real world advantage to the PS5.

I think the issue here is you're confusing the way CPU and GPU are used.

CPUs do not sit at 100% while gaming.
Most of the time, they sit around 30-50 percent under intense loads and they scale as needed.

The instance when you would max out a GPU and a CPU to 100% would cause so much stuttering and shittiness that its not even worth imagining how you'd manage it.

I'm not confusing anything, you seem to be. There are many games this generation that were CPU bound. The Digital Foundry video of the Series X BC proves this point. When a game is CPU bound on PS5 it will NOT have access to the full power of the GPU. On the Series X it still will. This means that on the Series X devs can shift more compute over to the GPU when things are CPU bound if they want to.

Why exactly do you think even graphically "poor" games have framerate drops? CPU. Not GPU.

 

[Yoboman]

I'll play the best looking games on consoles from Sony first party

 

[loktaiextatus]

I'm not defining cold boot lol. Opening a game that isn't open is a cold boot, has been forever on consoles. The PS5 is also known to be able to jump right into sections or modes of a game? Really? Where have you seen this in action? The fact is that if the PS5 can load something in a quarter of a second, the Series X can do it in at most half a second. That's what I'm saying - the better the loading is on the PS5, the less of an advantage it is because the Series X will load ~50% slower, so if 50% is 40 seconds that's bad, but if 50% is 0.2 milliseconds then there's no real world advantage to the PS5.

I want to process this. You dont believe that the PS5 can load Kena in 2 seconds....but you want to believe all loading times will be sub 1 second and so
the differences will be measured in milliseconds.

Can I confirm that?

 

[MrFunSocks]

I want to process this. You dont believe that the PS5 can load Kena in 2 seconds....but you want to believe all loading times will be sub 1 second and so
the differences will be measured in milliseconds.

Can I confirm that?

oh FFS. I'm giving examples purely for the point of examples. I'm not saying games will take 0.4ms to load an entire game.

The only thing being confirmed is you choosing a bad hill to die on with this.

 

[dano1]

Power is King

Speed wins races



Both will be awesome!!

 

[Stuart360]

Is it really that hard to answer a simple innocent question without turning the thread into console war shite?

 

[loktaiextatus]

oh FFS. I'm giving examples purely for the point of examples. I'm not saying games will take 0.4ms to load an entire game.

The only thing being confirmed is you choosing a bad hill to die on with this.

It doesnt seem like it. It seems like you're insisting 50% I/O is no biggie, but 15 percent GPU will be highly noticeable, experience changing.
And that load times cant be long enough to notice on either machine even if one of them is doubled from the other- which you dont want
to believe based on numbers, unless its about floating point operations.

Im not saying any of this to attack you, you just have a hard time kind of presenting an argument that stays in one place.
At least Im on a hill(per you), You're running all over the countryside and cherrypicking things to respond to.

 

[RasAlGhoul]

This is a super reductive way to compare the platforms.

 

[loktaiextatus]

I'm not confusing anything, you seem to be. There are many games this generation that were CPU bound. The Digital Foundry video of the Series X BC proves this point. When a game is CPU bound on PS5 it will NOT have access to the full power of the GPU. On the Series X it still will. This means that on the Series X devs can shift more compute over to the GPU when things are CPU bound if they want to.

Why exactly do you think even graphically "poor" games have framerate drops? CPU. Not GPU.

CPU bound does not mean CPU utilization, it means what the CPU can comfortably handle. Full utilization is another aspect entirely.
Dont confuse stuttering with frame rate dips. You can drop frame rates because the CPU is doing physics and is overwhelmed but thats not
about being CPU bound, its about overworking the CPU. These new CPUs are quite beefy if you look at modern gaming PCs the CPU isnt
generally a GIANT factor- in fact the biggest differences in frame rates are between AMD and Intel, not within one class of similar AMD cpus.

 

[M1chl]

​

 

[LazyParrot]

This poll really needs a "Better games" option.

 

[JLB]

Your assumptions (graphics will be marginally better on the X, load times will be wildly better on ps5) can not be validated on reality, so impossible to answer.

 

[The Leaked Truths]

Speed wins races



Both will be awesome!!

Agreed

 

[MarkMe2525]

Nice false dichotomy to bait people into accepting what you're really looking for.

What if the fancy SSD and dedicated I/O hardware free up the CPU and GPU to do more work than would otherwise be possible? Is that less powerful?

It's possible it would to a degree. Is it going to mitigate 17% raw compute, hardware VRS, and ML upscaling? That's the question we will have answered in a couple months.

Regardless, both are going to be kick ass and after seeing XSX loading, I'm really excited to see what the PS5 can do in comparison.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Your assumptions (graphics will be marginally better on the X, load times will be wildly better on ps5) can not be validated on reality, so impossible to answer.

All we have today is numbers.

If I say, you can have 1.00 or 1.15 yeah its better, Will you feel it? Maybe if you were allowed to multiply it like in a pay raise situation.
If I say "I can get you to the airport in 20 minutes or in 10 minutes" its easy to measure. Easy to feel the value in that.

I only insist that the loading times will be half, to the same extent its insisted the performance will be comparable to the Terraflop increase- which in the real world
it hasnt been comparing nvidia GPUs for instance, moving from current gen nvidia to the 3000 series has not been linear. Even the 30tf vs 36tf flagships with a 20 percent
boost are seeing 10% frame rate increase. Nothing to sneeze at , but its still not linear. So even if loading times arent either we're still comparing numbers today.
To ask someone to VOTE and make a choice and weight in, knowing full well all we have is numbers, and then saying "You cant assume that based on numbers"
is weird as hell. Either compare the specs or dont.

 

[MrFunSocks]

It doesnt seem like it. It seems like you're insisting 50% I/O is no biggie, but 15 percent GPU will be highly noticeable, experience changing.
And that load times cant be long enough to notice on either machine even if one of them is doubled from the other- which you dont want
to believe based on numbers, unless its about floating point operations.

Im not saying any of this to attack you, you just have a hard time kind of presenting an argument that stays in one place.
At least Im on a hill(per you), You're running all over the countryside and cherrypicking things to respond to.

You don't seem to be understanding why I'm saying that 50% faster max theoretical SSD loading speeds - not "I/O" as a whole - is less of a big deal though. I used those examples specifically to show you why, but you completely got the wrong take from it.

I'll put it as simply as I can.

Game with super fast load times on PS5? Game will have super fast load times on Series X, because an extra 50% of "essentially instant" is negligible and will still be "essentially instant".
Game with long load times on PS5, like 30 seconds? That's where the slower SSD on Series X would be more apparenty, as it would then take 60 seconds.

Do you understand yet? By pointing out how insanely fast the PS5 can load something you're actually making the SSD difference less important. If something takes 1s to load on the PS5, it will take at most 2 seconds on the Series X. That's not a big deal, that's basically irrelevant.

You seriously lack comprehension skills. You're not making any sense.

CPU bound does not mean CPU utilization, it means what the CPU can comfortably handle. Full utilization is another aspect entirely.
Dont confuse stuttering with frame rate dips. You can drop frame rates because the CPU is doing physics and is overwhelmed but thats not
about being CPU bound, its about overworking the CPU. These new CPUs are quite beefy if you look at modern gaming PCs the CPU isnt
generally a GIANT factor- in fact the biggest differences in frame rates are between AMD and Intel, not within one class of similar AMD cpus.

No, when people talk about a game being CPU bound they mean that the CPU is the limiting factor. The game is bound by the CPU performance. If it's not hitting full usage then it's not bound by it, is it?

I'm not confusing stuttering with frame rate dips lol. You literally seem to have no idea what you're talking about, making up things that no one is saying but saying that they directly said it.

 

[loktaiextatus]

It's possible it would to a degree. Is it going to mitigate 17% raw compute, hardware VRS, and ML upscaling? That's the question we will have answered in a couple months.

Regardless, both are going to be kick ass and after seeing XSX loading, I'm really excited to see what the PS5 can do in comparison.

Source on ML upscaling, Source that PS5 doesnt have something like VRS? It seems like a lot bigger jump to assume MS will have exclusive ML upscaling PC and PS5 dont have
than to assume that a chip doing VRS and another chip in the same series wont share the feature.

 

[captainclutch777]

More power is the obvious answer, no ones going to even notice 5 seconds vs 10. 60fps at 4K vs unstable 60fps at 4K, yes.

Uh I think it's pretty easy to notice half the time when some of these loading times are over 30 seconds. We are talking about multiple annoying YouTube ad's worth of time adding up over the course of a tonight of gaming. I can't even watch normal cable now due to the time added by advertisements. Call me impatient but I'd rather not sit around if I can avoid it and when you play games for hours on end, these times add up. Anyone that has played Destiny knows the struggle. That game requires lots of travel between worlds that takes a ton of time. If the PS5 can load that in 20 seconds compared to 40 on the xbox, thats a pretty big win IMO.

Additionally both consoles will be doing 4k 60 just fine. That power difference shouldn't have any real impact, especially with the xbox targeting older consoles as well. First part Sony games are going to look better than anything MS comes up with most likely, especially when leveraging the SSD/IO for world design.

 

[killatopak]

Faster loading.

I have a 1080p tv so it kinda skews my preference.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Is it really that hard to answer a simple innocent question without turning the thread into console war shite?

are you new?

 

[BeforeU]

has sony even shown the faster loading yet? how fast it is to go in/out of the game, navigate in OS?

 

[jaysius]

More power for no games is useless, faster loading of ugly games sucks too.

This gen overall is a dud.

 

[JLB]

All we have today is numbers.

If I say, you can have 1.00 or 1.15 yeah its better, Will you feel it? Maybe if you were allowed to multiply it like in a pay raise situation.
If I say "I can get you to the airport in 20 minutes or in 10 minutes" its easy to measure. Easy to feel the value in that.

I only insist that the loading times will be half, to the same extent its insisted the performance will be comparable to the Terraflop increase- which in the real world
it hasnt been comparing nvidia GPUs for instance, moving from current gen nvidia to the 3000 series has not been linear. Even the 30tf vs 36tf flagships with a 20 percent
boost are seeing 10% frame rate increase. Nothing to sneeze at , but its still not linear. So even if loading times arent either we're still comparing numbers today.
To ask someone to VOTE and make a choice and weight in, knowing full well all we have is numbers, and then saying "You cant assume that based on numbers"
is weird as hell. Either compare the specs or dont.

Facts dont care about... believes -benji dixit-
I dont see a straight path between some numbers and the end experience.
Once we see real multiplatform games compared in both systems we will see if those assumptions of OP -100% faster loadings- are accurate. Im already pressing f.

 

[loktaiextatus]

You don't seem to be understanding why I'm saying that 50% faster max theoretical SSD loading speeds - not "I/O" as a whole - is less of a big deal though. I used those examples specifically to show you why, but you completely got the wrong take from it.

I'll put it as simply as I can.

Game with super fast load times on PS5? Game will have super fast load times on Series X, because an extra 50% of "essentially instant" is negligible and will still be "essentially instant".
Game with long load times on PS5, like 30 seconds? That's where the slower SSD on Series X would be more apparenty, as it would then take 60 seconds.

Do you understand yet? By pointing out how insanely fast the PS5 can load something you're actually making the SSD difference less important. If something takes 1s to load on the PS5, it will take at most 2 seconds on the Series X. That's not a big deal, that's basically irrelevant.

You seriously lack comprehension skills. You're not making any sense.

And so begin the ad hominem attacks
Accusing me of making no sense
claiming to know what I comprehend while failing to acknowledge what I've said in plain- no not failing... REFUSING to acknowledge what I've
stated in plain english with a logically consistent path .

Again... You want to use tiny numbers ok use tiny numbers. If something takes 10 seconds on the series x (A pretty small loading time by todays standards ,and faster than basically
anything demoed on Series X yet) and it took 5 seconds on PS5,. that is noticeable, especially in the heat of the moment. Its not nothing.

Meanwhile I am saying, assuming its totally linear and you need to dial back, lets say, frame rate is 15 percent lower. Assuming its all totally linear with the actual
measured numbers in terraflops the Xbox has to be less than 9 FPS beyond 60 for the PS5 not to catch up - assuming all else is equal.

I want to clarify. Where am I coming at this argument from? Objectivity.
PCs have 30TF cards now. 30+ TF. Those are out there and the consoles arent even out.

To me having I/O as fast as the newest PCs (even intel PCs dont have PCIE 4.0) feels more important
and more future proof than a 1.8tf difference in a world of 10-30TF CPUs.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Source on ML upscaling, Source that PS5 doesnt have something like VRS? It seems like a lot bigger jump to assume MS will have exclusive ML upscaling PC and PS5 dont have
than to assume that a chip doing VRS and another chip in the same series wont share the feature.

Microsoft hot chips and why would I assume they have hardware VRS support if Cerny didn't mention it? He sure talked about mesh shaders and tempest engine, would be odd to have this feature that MS touts as a differentiator and not mention it.

Look, I'm excited for PS5 as well. I was replying to a specific statement. Just because XSX is going to have a power advantage doesn't take away anything from PS5. My X1X didn't stop me from enjoying my PS4. PS5 is also going to have some unique capabilities as well.

 

[MrFunSocks]

And so begin the ad hominem attacks
Accusing me of making no sense
claiming to know what I comprehend while failing to acknowledge what I've said in plain- no not failing... REFUSING to acknowledge what I've
stated in plain english with a logically consistent path .

Again... You want to use tiny numbers ok use tiny numbers. If something takes 10 seconds on the series x (A pretty small loading time by todays standards ,and faster than basically
anything demoed on Series X yet) and it took 5 seconds on PS5,. that is noticeable, especially in the heat of the moment. Its not nothing.

Meanwhile I am saying, assuming its totally linear and you need to dial back, lets say, frame rate is 15 percent lower. Assuming its all totally linear with the actual
measured numbers in terraflops the Xbox has to be less than 9 FPS beyond 60 for the PS5 not to catch up - assuming all else is equal.

I want to clarify. Where am I coming at this argument from? Objectivity.
PCs have 30TF cards now. 30+ TF. Those are out there and the consoles arent even out.

To me having I/O as fast as the newest PCs (even intel PCs dont have PCIE 4.0) feels more important
and more future proof than a 1.8tf difference in a world of 10-30TF CPUs.

Nothing "in the heat of the moment" is taking 5 seconds lol.

I think you're getting confused between the multiple people telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm done replying to someone that clearly has no idea what they're talking about and is just clinging to made up things to try and make their console of choice come out on top. See ya.

 

[loktaiextatus]

Microsoft hot chips and why would I assume they have hardware VRS support if Cerny didn't mention it? He sure talked about mesh shaders and tempest engine, would be odd to have this feature that MS touts as a differentiator and not mention it.

Look, I'm excited for PS5 as well. I was replying to a specific statement. Just because XSX is going to have a power advantage doesn't take away anything from PS5. My X1X didn't stop me from enjoying my PS4. PS5 is also going to have some unique capabilities as well.

And I never argued a power advantage to be nullified. I argued (per the thread) that I think the bigger difference could be in I/O. or rather- if I have to vote that I vote for I/O and
I will believe in MS's exclusive ML Upscaling about as soon as that POWA OF DA CLOUD kicks in from 2013.

 

[loktaiextatus]

I'm done replying to someone that clearly has no idea what they're talking about and is just clinging to made up things to try and make their console of choice come out on top. See ya.

Projection is a hell of a drug my friend. You're the one who showed up during as discussion in progress to weigh in and white knight for the Xbox. God forbid I not respect
60 vs 69 FPS difference in compute power.

Please point out my "made up things" while we discuss how we will lose 33% of our framerate to downclocking.

 

[LittleBusters]

Now suddenly I'm hearing that TF don't matter, PS5 games that run 1440p/60fps will look gorgeous and better than XSX games at 4K/60fps, because Sony has all the talent.