Support NeoGAF

[GuinGuin]

looking forward to seeing an actual game on ue5 on ps5 and what Sony first party can do with it. Let’s pick up in 6 to 7 years seeings though that’s how long bend took with Days Gone.

Where are you getting these insane numbers from? If anything Unreal 5 should speed up development as you only need to make one high level asset and not several LODs. Games take about 3 years to make even huge ones like TLOU2.

 

[Snake29]

I've followed the whole topic, what can I say that hasn't been said by 100 people now. You need another A-Z explanation that you won't understand or just dismiss?

You follow and just come in and shitpost, yes that is what you are doing. Peaking from behind the curtains. I understand it, i don't need you for that.

 

[elbourreau]

Games take about 3 years to make even huge ones like TLOU2.

Well.......... ................ Are you sure about that? I thought LoU2 was a 5+years developpement...

 

[Insane Metal]

No poligonal edges on all those rocks. What a time to be alive.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Games take about 3 years to make even huge ones like TLOU2.

TLOU2 took 4 years of full production. Five and a half years if we count pre-production.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Well he said it was the same demo repeatedly.. and stressed it runs fine on a PC. He's showing it off in the editor because he wanted to show all the different views like the triangle highlighting, making no mention of a difference in textures.. he outright states it as a misconception that only the PS5 could run the demo.

And it just doesn't make sense that a demo likely around 20GB in total size would ever really stress I/O that much. Even w/ 3x compression... that's 60GB... let's say that fly-through section is 10% of the demo.. that's 6GB uncompressed... if it's 25% of the data (very unlikely) it's still only 15GB. And compressed that's only 5GB...

In the context of an "Inside nanite" twitch video it is the exact same demo with the same geometric "nanite" assets in the editor, so my belief is that both statements are true. Somethings would be better on PS5 - say like textures - where latency matters, and other things would be better with more pixel-rate on a top of the line PC GPU, because nanite's limiting factor is pixel-rate for key bottlenecked areas.

He also stated that the code is different in the 2020 version because they didn't have the world grid partition system implemented - or whatever UE5 specifically calls it.
We also don't know what type of WFH PC he has, it isn't beyond realms of possibility that it is one of those £10k cards that AMD did with an SSD on the side.

RTX I/O is not XVA; it's the DirectStorage API w/ using an RTX GPU for decompression. I don't know how you can come to the conclusion it has the same limitations as XVA, MS doesn't have an RTX GPU for it's decompression... they outright state 100x throughput.

But the main thing about UE5.. is that it's actually extremely EFFICIENT with data.. that's the real advancement. Which makes the idea that it's heavily I/O dependent sort of.. a myth.

They are the same solution from the info we had when RTX IO first surfaced, and will have the same latency as each other, not throughput which is decompression rate. So not a 100x latency improvement, but a 20x latency improvement like XVA's technology showed in their info reveal many months back before the RTX IO board slide info.

edit: On the 4096px issue, look at the complex physics vortex simulation (Gbuffer?) texture at the end of the land of nanite scene in his editor. It looks to be as is before fully triggered, but the texture is a fraction of the portal size - maybe less than a quarter, or maybe a quarter hard to remember exactly without checking the 3hr stream.

 

[martino]

Not that it detracts from this being a huge step up for PC and will be the baseline for UE5, but as it is a shared project with Microsoft, both the DirectStorage XVA and RTX IO are the same solution, and are still only a 20x reduction in latency over HDD - as stated in the XVA reveal info - not the 100x latency reduction of the IO complex solution

You can read :

that enable rapid GPU-based loading and game asset decompression, accelerating I/O performance by up to 100x compared to hard drives and traditional storage APIs

Introducing NVIDIA RTX IO: GPU-Accelerated Storage Technology For The Next Generation of Games

Load instantaneously, experience vast worlds with endless views and rich detail, and further improve gameplay by leveraging the power of GeForce RTX 30 Series graphics cards and NVIDIA RTX IO.

www.nvidia.com

and here :

Xbox Series X delivers an effective 4.8 GB/s in I/O performance to the title, approximately 100x the I/O performance in current generation consoles

Xbox Velocity Architecture: A Closer Look at the Next-Gen Tech Driving Gaming Innovation Forward on Xbox Series X - Xbox Wire

When we set out to design the Xbox Series X, we aspired to build our most powerful console ever powered by next generation innovation and delivering consistent, sustained performance never before seen in a console with no compromises. To achieve this goal, we knew we needed to analyze each...

news.xbox.com

and those are relative numbers coming from different context too.

 

[Black_Stride]

Flying through the scene manually in the engine viewport is the same as doing it in a release build. Only with extra engine overhead (significant), and minus the animated player Actor and camera (insignificant).

Whatever you can do in the engine, you can always do faster in a cooked build.

I dont get how people dont get this.

Guys are acting like the engine overhead is zero and when the game is compiled it suddenly has 10000 resources of extra overhead added to the game, where this overhead comes from? The character, triggers for "GPU" based Niagara effects and GPU post processing......which can all be turned on in editor.

Im really starting doubt the intelligence of some of these posters, how they manage to put together entire essays of misinformation is almost impressive.

 

[strange headache]

Yes. And it was not just walking and flying, moving mechanics, physics, sound, destruction...i don't know what you have seen? Everything in the background also matters.



No it's not....see my recorded video in UE5 editor:

You didn't even leave the editor. Of course "editor mode" inside the editor is less taxing that "game mode" inside the editor.
For your comparison to even make sense you would need to compile the demo first and then compare it to the ps5 which was also running a compiled version.

Gameplay mechanics, AI and physics calculations are computational tasks and do not require much bandwidth at all since there are no textures or graphical assets sent through the pipeline.
So if you seek to emphasize the PS5's power, you should know that all these things have not much impact on system bandwidth anyway. Unless you want to make the silly claim that a modern CPU/GPU combo somehow has less computational power than a console.

Your whole point is moot since you're making no difference between graphical and computational tasks, both of which are taxing hardware in very different ways.
In other words you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Snake29]

You didn't even leave the editor. Of course "editor mode" inside the editor is less taxing that "game mode" inside the editor.
For your comparison to even make sense you would need to compile the demo first and then compare it to the ps5 which was also running a compiled version.

Gameplay mechanics, AI and physics calculations are computational tasks and do not require much bandwidth at all since there are no textures or graphical assets sent through the pipeline.
So if you seek to emphasize the PS5's power, you should know that all these things have not much impact on system bandwidth anyway. Unless you want to make the silly claim that a modern CPU/GPU combo somehow has less computational power than a console.

Your whole point is moot since you're making no difference between graphical and computational tasks, both of which are taxing hardware in very different ways.
In other words you have no clue what you're talking about.

It's not about this at all. That wasn't the purpose of my video after all. The point I'd made was very clear i can run that scene in editor mode and it's not taxing on my system, what others did claim it would. When playing the demo itself, the drops are visible and the performance is less then the other mode.

The Demo OP posted is still running inside the editor. They are only going full screen since you can see the editor buttons on top. They didn't cooked the demo without using the editor, so my video is showing what they are doing in their whole video. Only thing i did was going into "active level editor mode" to use the game logics, and that part was more taxing.

My whole point of making the video had nothing to do with the PS5 as a power comparison.

 

[Fredrik]

Fredrik respect dude. Your the “only” one not going personal and just want a normal discussion. I also had some dips, and in others runs dips at places i didn’t had before. But the whole point of this thread and what people tried to claim from the start was “ooh look they lied, demo can run on pc”. But what we’ve seen was a map area without any control over mechanics which is much less resource intensive because you can crank camera speed and fly over the area with the camera without any interaction with the area, no collision, no vfx, and all other mechanics. So as long as we haven’t seen the demo on the pc running and playable like the Valley demo. We don’t know how it will run on different systems. And like i said, i bet some of the heavy sections wont do well on the ssd side or even fps.

But why not, let EPIC release the demo if possible for the pc.

It’s just gaming, not worth getting personal over something like this

Anyway the Epic guy specifically adressed that there are misconceptions that the demo would only run on PS5. I understand your thinking but to me it seems logical to trust him here. I too wanted to see him play it but I’m okay with his comment on it. But we can try the engine at home now and see that it runs even on older PCs so for me the mystery has faded. Now I’m more interested in learning how to make my own UE5 game! I tried the Metahuman plug and it’s quite insane too. I want body sculpting as well though, could only edit the face right now.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

You don't see Xbox fans downplaying pc, or saying stupid stuff like "It can't run without master blaster SSD magic" why do sony fans feel the need to do it?

Same for Nintendo fans, I never saw them even bother talking about PC. But for whatever reason, Sony fans are obsessed with PC

 

[Guilty_AI]

All these beautifully rendered rocks, but it still can't render something as hard as my heart

 

[strange headache]

It's not about this at all. That wasn't the purpose of my video after all. The point I'd made was very clear i can run that scene in editor mode and it's not taxing on my system, what others did claim it would. When playing the demo itself, the drops are visible and the performance is less then the other mode.

The Demo OP posted is still running inside the editor. They are only going full screen since you can see the editor buttons on top. They didn't cooked the demo without using the editor, so my video is showing what they are doing in their whole video. Only thing i did was going into "active level editor mode" to use the game logics, and that part was more taxing.

Great, so the only thing you've managed to demonstrate is how much more powerful the PC demonstration was in comparison to what was shown on the PS5.
Performance on PC was comparable even with all the overhead resources, that the editor was hogging.

Which begs the question, what is the f*cking point you're trying to make here with your incessant bickering?

My whole point of making the video had nothing to do with the PS5 as a power comparison.

That is a straight up lie:

I do not believe it will run the scene at the end of the demo completely smooth on the pc SSD's/NVMe drives.

This will hurt our pc storage. If Tim and his team is right, this is what they wanted to show what is optimized for the PS5. I'm not seeing sata SSD's or NVMe's running this whole part completely smooth.

 

[Snake29]

It’s just gaming, not worth getting personal over something like this

Anyway the Epic guy specifically adressed that there are misconceptions that the demo would only run on PS5. I understand your thinking but to me it seems logical to trust him here. I too wanted to see him play it but I’m okay with his comment on it. But we can try the engine at home now and see that it runs even on older PCs so for me the mystery has faded. Now I’m more interested in learning how to make my own UE5 game! I tried the Metahuman plug and it’s quite insane too. I want body sculpting as well though, could only edit the face right now.

I think there is still a misconception since they said it could run on the PC, but what they've shown, was nothing more then over of the map and use the camera control to fly over it (same as you can do in the Valley demo before playing the gameplay part). Like you said, i want them to equally run the game, play it will everything enabled. I'm just curious how some sections will run on normal SSD's and NVMe drives like we've seen last year. I bet our systems will drop frames in the area with all those statues and when the roof open, and the flying part will also be taxing...but how taxing, we don't know.

Haven't tried Metahuman plug in yet, but i will look at it.

Great, so the only thing you've managed to demonstrate is how much more powerful the PC demonstration was in comparison to what was shown on the PS5.
Performance on PC was comparable even with all the overhead resources, that the editor was hogging.

Which begs the question, what is the f*cking point you're trying to make here with your incessant bickering?

Uhm......sorry but we've yet to see it playable on the pc. Run that map in editor doesn't hit your system at all. My point was already clear, but it;'s like you don't want to understand it. I need to that same fucking demo as it was on the PS5....THEN we can discuss this. So far we can't with just some editor and map area to fly over with the internal camera control in UE.

So stop discussing it with me...

 

[strange headache]

I think there is still a misconception since they said it could run on the PC, but what they've shown, was nothing more then over of the map and use the camera control to fly over it (same as you can do in the Valley demo before playing the gameplay part).

...but you're not here to make power comparisons between PC and your console of choice, right?

Uhm......sorry but we've yet to see it playable on the pc. Run that map in editor doesn't hit your system at all. My point was already clear, but it;'s like you don't want to understand it.

You just had a developer make a demonstration on a comparable map, the hell do you want?
Running it in editor is way more taxing on system resources than executing a compiled version as evidenced by your own video...
Your level of denial is absolutely insane.

 

[Snake29]

...but you're not here to make power comparisons between PC and your console of choice, right?

i
ng

You just had a developer make a demonstration on a comparable map, the hell do you want?
Running it in editor is way more taxing on system resources than executing a compiled version as evidenced by your own video...
Your level of denial is absolutely insane.

My own video showed is was not taxing in editor mode, you are fucking blind that's for sure...so cut the crap.

This:



is not the same as this:



Same demo, different execution. One is just a editor overview and the other realtime running on a different system with all game mechanics enabled which is more taxing.

As long as we haven't this running on pc, we don't know how it will run from start to finish.

But please continue to insult...

 

[strange headache]

My own video showed is was not taxing in editor mode, you are fucking blind that's for sure...so cut the crap.

Oh so now it is running too well on PC? Which one is it?
Stop contradicting yourself!

Your own video showed that running the game inside the editor is way more taxing than running the compiled version, thus demonstrating that PCs are more than capable of handling the demo.
If a more resource intensive task can run on a system then a less intensive one certainly can also.

 

[Snake29]

Oh so now it is running too well on PC? Which one is it?
Stop contradicting yourself!

Your own video showed that running the game inside the editor is way more taxing than running the compiled version, thus demonstrating that PCs are more than capable of handling the demo.
If a more resource intensive task can run on a system then a less intensive one certainly can also.

Just posted my video, see my post above:

- Editor mode (same as the EPIC video): Not resource heavy, higher framerate and i can fly fast if i want, change object, make them larger etc.

- Play mode: Well you see how the fps is much lower and dips in heavy scenes.

What do you not understand? When i play the gameplay part, the drops are visible. You do not have to run the Valley demo inside the editor since you can launch it without. And well, if you want to know you do not have to package it and compile it's since it's already a separate demo. Just right click on the Valley demo and "launch game".

Compare these screens with my video and you see, the fps isn't even better most part.

Edit:

Ooh and you can also see the pop in, Sky not rendered, texture pop in., when the transition is visible.

Run it yourself...i will wait....or just go.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Where are you getting these insane numbers from? If anything Unreal 5 should speed up development as you only need to make one high level asset and not several LODs. Games take about 3 years to make even huge ones like TLOU2.

I think you need to look into the full production cycle of current gen games. Maybe watch the incredible documentary "raising kratos" by Sony on the development of God of war. And they were given a team 8 to 9 months early.still ended up being over 5 years.

 

[strange headache]

What do you not understand? When i play the gameplay part, the drops are visible. You do not have to run the Valley demo inside the editor since you can launch it without. And well, if you want to know you do not have to package it and compile it's since it's already a separate demo. Just right click on the Valley demo and "launch game".

Compare these screens with my video and you see, the fps isn't even better most part.

What is this supposed to show? The PS5 demo ran at 1440p, 30 FPS, and lacked ray-tracing.
For comparison a top end graphics card runs almost 60fps with unoptimized drivers:

Also how are people supposed to evaluate your results without even knowing your system specs?

None of that stuff refutes any of the previous arguments and I'm not going to run around in circles with you.
It is clear you're only here to console warrior, nothing else.

 

[assurdum]

ties back with the epic china leak.

i guess the sony marketing nda have expired and epic US can speak more freely.

You are never tired to spit out console war bullshit isn't it?
-Epic has never said UE5 can run only ps5
-At the time UE5 just ran on ps5 and that's it, surely doesn't meant pc was incapable or any other conspiracy behind it, probably thanks to the collaboration with Cerny it was easier and faster get it first on ps5 than on pc but who knows
-The fact Tim Sweeney and other Epic members praised ps5 hardware and call his I/O system so advanced to be still unreachable on pc (outside using the more RAM I guess) has nothing to do with NDA, just their personal observation, you can't believe them but that's your problem not surely a marketing deal and not sure what NDA has to do with personal appreciations

 

[GuinGuin]

I think you need to look into the full production cycle of current gen games. Maybe watch the incredible documentary "raising kratos" by Sony on the development of God of war. And they were given a team 8 to 9 months early.still ended up being over 5 years.

They also made an almost complete unreleased game in that time which was canceled.

 

[ZywyPL]

Snake29

 

[Md Ray]

The PS5 demo ran at 1440p, 30 FPS, and lacked ray-tracing.

It didn't.

PS5 was/is using the same Lumen (voxel-based ray tracing) lighting system those GPUs were benchmarked with.

 

[Lysandros]

So much of the twitch nanite stream really drilled into the way nanite taxes a GPU in ROPs and scales linearly by resolution by being all done in the rasterization (fragment shader) - according to Brian , which I also tried to discuss for weeks without people like VFXVeteran and you acknowledging.

So if we take - a mid range game clock for - a RTX 3090 and doing a quick estimate of pixel-rate (ROPs x clock = 112x1.7) ~190billion/s, and do the same for the highest next-gen console pixel-rate, we get 140billion/s. So assuming console optimizations like cache scrubbers, and streaming out compression to the SSD made no difference in the first UE5 Demo solution, then a RTX 3090 PC should be able to manage nanite at 1.35x the native resolution, = 3,456 x 1895 @ 30fps at the same fidelity settings AFAIK.

Wouldn't PS5 have a noticeable advantage over XSX in this regard if that's the case?

 

[Snake29]

What is this supposed to show? The PS5 demo ran at 1440p, 30 FPS, and lacked ray-tracing.
For comparison a top end graphics card runs almost 60fps with unoptimized drivers:

Also how are people supposed to evaluate your results without even knowing your system specs?

None of that stuff refutes any of the previous arguments and I'm not going to run around in circles with you.
It is clear you're only here to console warrior, nothing else.

Nice try but you haven't evne tried to coming with facts yourself. Like i said...run the fucking demo or shut up. And if you want to know my specs:

Ryzen 3700X
32GB ram @3600mhz
RTX 2080 super
NVMe drives and Optane drive

See my last added screenshot with the pop-in. That's why i think that the PS5 demo on PC will not run smooth in every section of the demo. Clearly, the PC sata SSD's and NVMe's are not really utilize it atm, so we will see more pop-in in taxing scenes.

 

[strange headache]

Nice try but you haven't evne tried to coming with facts yourself. Like i said...run the fucking demo or shut up. And if you want to know my specs:

Ryzen 3700X
32GB ram @3600mhz
RTX 2080 super
NVMe drives and Optane drive

Whodathunk your results are comparable to the chart that I posted.

 

[assurdum]

Wouldn't PS5 have a noticeable advantage over XSX in this regard if that's the case?

How can know that?

 

[DenchDeckard]

They also made an almost complete unreleased game in that time which was canceled.

Whaaaat? Lol that team was working on the other game before god of war. Not at the same time. They canned the other game, fired a load of people and then moved the full team to Cory 9 months before they were supposed to then it took over 4 years to complete.

 

[Md Ray]

How can know that?

Pixel fillrate throughput:
XSX GPU = 116.8 Gpix/sec
PS5 GPU = 142.7 Gpix/sec +22% advantage for PS5 here.

 

[Lysandros]

Pixel fillrate throughput:
XSX GPU = 116.8 Gpix/sec
PS5 GPU = 142.7 Gpix/sec +22% advantage for PS5 here.

Thanks 'Rich', you were faster.

 

[Snake29]

Whodathunk your results are comparable to the chart that I posted.

And your point now? My claim is right, it doesn't run better or worse outside of the UE5 editor. Inside the editor the fps was even higher running the demo, so i don't know what it caused.

The point is, you are still not running it yourself. I do not have to make excuses since i drop facts in your face.

Snake29

Yeah and you just ignoring the facts i drop, with your easy take with a gif.

Talking about "can't handle the truth"...lol. With or without editor, it doesn't matter for the performance. For some reason, it even runs worse!

facts facts facts.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

So if we take - a mid range game clock for - a RTX 3090 and doing a quick estimate of pixel-rate (ROPs x clock = 112x1.7) ~190billion/s, and do the same for the highest next-gen console pixel-rate, we get 140billion/s. So assuming console optimizations like cache scrubbers, and streaming out compression to the SSD made no difference in the first UE5 Demo solution, then a RTX 3090 PC should be able to manage nanite at 1.35x the native resolution, = 3,456 x 1895 @ 30fps at the same fidelity settings AFAIK.

According to this logic, the PS5 should go toe to toe with an RTX 3080. I'll believe it when I see it

 

[strange headache]

And your point now? My claim is right, it doesn't run better or worse outside of the UE5 editor. Inside the editor the fps was even higher running the demo, so i don't know what it caused.

The point is, you are still not running it yourself. I do not have to make excuses since i drop facts in your face.

What facts? You shared 4 screens with single FPS values, where are the averages?

You had one pop-in glitch and immediately assume it is the same for every PC system. You are not stating facts, you're making vast generalizations based on a single point of data (your own system).

Here are people with similar configs running the demo without any pop-ins or problems that you describe:









Here is the demo running at full 4k on a 3090 with 35fps. Notice any popping?





Also you're completely ignoring that the graphics drivers haven't been optimized yet and that it is running on different systems with vastly different components. On the PS5 there's only one hardware configuration to optimize for, so it's a different story. Point is, a decent to high-end PC performs just as well as the PS5 if not better.

 

[Papacheeks]

It uses half a CPU core; the rest is done on the GPU. There is an insane amount of extra CPU power on PCs.. more than enough to spare.



Software? So what? That "software" runs on the GPU.. have you noticed how much power is available on PC GPUs? Just because there isn't a dedicated chip doesn't mean that's going to stress a PC GPU.

Most of UE5 uses "software" too.



You really think GPUs with 3x's the power and CPUs with multiple times the power can't overcome a dedicated decompression chip on the PS5?

Cuz PC doesnt "NEED" that, PCIE by definition is either talking directly to the CPU already or to the chipset.
With new IO solutions the CPU can even be bypassed entirely....why would we need something else to "talk" to the SSD?

The IPC of a full fat CPU/GPU is enough to not need to have a separate piece of hardware to do the decompression.
And once the Win 10 version with DirectStorage is out, devs will just force that version as minspec and the war is over.
Hell they could put an SSD in the rec spec as well to make sure their game works correct.
HDD for minspec but dont cry if the game runs like shit on your PC.

In a gaming PC you are going to have a GPU or CPU thats vastly superior at decompression instructions than the chip in the PS5 so why would anyone want to then have another custom chip to do that job, just schedule a core/thread or the GPU to do the job.

So yes you are correct there are no consumer level custom chips for I/O and decompression.....in the same vein on PC there are also no consumer level custom GPUs, or custom CPUs, or custom RAM configurations, or custom SSDs.....see where im going with this.

DirectStorage might be alot closer than you think.

Yea I'm actually intrigued. I'm in the beta program for windows I wonder if this is the modular windows approach I heard about?


To your first part, you don't think Sony with a GPU similar to 5700xt+ in GPU computation didn't test the results of using CPU/GPU?

When I seriously talk to developers who literally have the ps5 and develop on pc. They are literally telling telling me the custom solution has a lot of benefits that until we see chiplet on both cpu/GPU that pc won't be as effecient.

It's going to get maybe close, but then again pc doesn't have 6 priority lanes. So brute forcing it with the changes in API for direct storage will be dependent on SSD speed. And in the world of development you don't design around something that still isn't common. You will see faster load times even if you have a sata SSD, will see benefits of a high end NVME. But it's still not something developers are yet designing around a specific standard yet. As in a game bring built around NVME being used as a virtual memory pool.

Maybe Microsoft shows this off in June?

Until I see pc doing what miles Morales does in the entire world being loaded. Or ratchet going from world to world I still think outside of load times it's still not going to be at the same level.

Using your gpu,CPU through software is not as effecient.

So I guess we wait. But until then Sony's design is going to be the standard for a while.

 

[Snake29]

What facts? You had one pop-in glitch and immediately assume it is the same for every PC system. You are not stating facts, you're making vast generalizations based on a single point of data (your own system).

Here are people with similar configs running the demo without any pop-ins or problem that you describe:









Here is the demo running at full 4k on a 3090 with 35fps. Notice any popping?





Also you're completely ignoring that the graphics drivers haven't been optimized yet and that it is running on different systems with vastly different components. On the PS5 there's only one hardware configuration to optimize for, so it's a different story. Point is, a decent to high-end PC performs just as well as the PS5 if not better.

I can also search for videos and see if they have pop in or not. So here:

RTX 3090 for instance:




But like i said, i was talking about my own system. Again don't put words in my mouth. Read my quote carefully:

And your point now? My claim is right, it doesn't run better or worse outside of the UE5 editor. Inside the editor the fps was even higher running the demo, so i don't know what it caused.

I'm not claiming anything what happens on other systems.

Try harder dude...pushing something that isn't there. The fact remains that it runs varied on the PC and not everyone has the same output, and as you say yourself..idd for the PS5 it's 1 configuration they have to take into account, hence why I say I don't expect PCs at this point to run that PS5 demo in those heavy sections smoothly.

 

[SLB1904]

Snake29

Yet is the only one with receipts. I don't known who can't handle the truth.

 

[strange headache]

I'm not claiming anything what happens on other systems.

Here are some facts:

• Nobody gives a sh*t about your wonky system, it is not representative to make any general claims from that.
• You still have provided zero evidence for your claim that the PS5 demo cannot run as well on PC, despite the developer himself stating otherwise.
• You claim the compiled version runs worse, despite not providing any average FPS values and without taking into account that your recording software is probably impacting your performance.
• The performance of your system is comparable to the hardware chart that I've posted above.
• You have yet to demonstrate any evidence that the PS5 would have similar performance in editor mode.
• The compiled versions have shown that similar demos run at 30fps on console while running 60fps in upper-range PCs.

In essence, there is zero reason to assume that the PS5 demo, while impressive of the console's performance, could not have run just as well on a modern PC.

To make it easier for those having reading comprehension issues:

• A $400 console performs equally to a $400 graphics card... whodathoughtit!

 

[assurdum]

Pixel fillrate throughput:
XSX GPU = 116.8 Gpix/sec
PS5 GPU = 142.7 Gpix/sec +22% advantage for PS5 here.

I wouldn't call it a notable advantage anyway.

 

[assurdum]

According to this logic, the PS5 should go toe to toe with an RTX 3080. I'll believe it when I see it

According to what logic?

 

[Brofist]

Here are some facts:

• Nobody gives a sh*t about your wonky system, it is not representative to make any general claims from that.
• You still have provided zero evidence for your claim that the PS5 demo cannot run as well on PC, despite the developer himself stating otherwise.
• You claim the compiled version runs worse, despite not providing any average FPS values and without taking into account that your recording software is probably impacting your performance.
• The performance of your system is comparable to the hardware chart that I've posted above.
• You have yet to demonstrate any evidence that the PS5 would have similar performance in editor mode.
• The compiled versions have shown that similar demos run at 30fps on console while running 60fps in upper-range PCs.

In essence, there is zero reason to assume that the PS5 demo, while impressive of the console's performance, could not have run just as well on a modern PC.

To make you easier for those having reading comprehension issues:

• A $400 console performs equally to a $400 graphics card... whodathoughtit!

Don't expect much of a reply, straight bricks for brains in that one

 

[Bernd Lauert]

According to what logic?

Pixel fill rate being the one single bottleneck of UE5.

 

[MonarchJT]

Wouldn't PS5 have a noticeable advantage over XSX in this regard if that's the case?

my gosh....some ppl will ever learn

 

[Snake29]

Here are some facts:

• Nobody gives a sh*t about your wonky system, it is not representative to make any general claims from that.
• You still have provided zero evidence for your claim that the PS5 demo cannot run as well on PC, despite the developer himself stating otherwise.
• You claim the compiled version runs worse, despite not providing any average FPS values and without taking into account that your recording software is probably impacting your performance.
• The performance of your system is comparable to the hardware chart that I've posted above.
• You have yet to demonstrate any evidence that the PS5 would have similar performance in editor mode.
• The compiled versions have shown that similar demos run at 30fps on console while running 60fps in upper-range PCs.

In essence, there is zero reason to assume that the PS5 demo, while impressive of the console's performance, could not have run just as well on a modern PC.

To make it easier for those having reading comprehension issues:

• A $400 console performs equally to a $400 graphics card... whodathoughtit!

Your first line says it all. You mother fucker trying to drop some stupid ass videos, then my response and just ignore it straight away with some weak shit.

I say it again, fuck you, since you are insulting me from the start and that was never necessary if you can’t handle a normal discussion.

You can’t clearly not handle what i gave you. I don’t give a FUCK what other systems do. Come drop some more videos to make a weak point, since there are also videos with less performance, your weak statement stays weak.

Start talking when you have some money to buy your own system.

You claim the compiled version runs worse, despite not providing any average FPS values and without taking into account that your recording software is probably impacting your performance

So tell me, how did i recorded my video then that you carefully have watched? Remember? The one that was running the Valley demo in the editor.

See your arguments are getting weak.

 

[kyliethicc]

Do I need to point out that Sony had early access to Unreal 5 and already has games in development that will likely use it like the new IP from Bend?

According to davidjaffe , Bend Studio have moved from Unreal Engine to Guerrilla's Decima engine.

He says sources of his at Sony told him Days Gone 2 began development and was being made using Decima, not UE4. Now they'e using it to make a new IP open world game.

However, Sony's smallest team Pixelopus do seem to be working a new game using UE5.

 

[elbourreau]

Snake29

Come on guys....

Can we move on, now?

 

[Md Ray]

I wouldn't call it a notable advantage anyway.

Notable enough to bring PS5's performance in line with XSX in many titles and sometimes even better.

 

[strange headache]

Your first line says it all. You mother fucker trying to drop some stupid ass videos, then my response and just ignore it straight away with some weak shit.

I say it again, fuck you, since you are insulting me from the start and that was never necessary if you can’t handle a normal discussion.

You can’t clearly not handle what i gave you. I don’t give a FUCK what other systems do. Come drop some more videos to make a weak point, since there are also videos with less performance, your weak statement stays weak.

Start talking when you have some money to buy your own system.

 

[GuinGuin]

According to davidjaffe , Bend Studio have moved from Unreal Engine to Guerrilla's Decima engine.

He says sources of his at Sony told him Days Gone 2 began development and was being made using Decima, not UE4. Now they'e using it to make a new IP open world game.

However, Sony's smallest team Pixelopus do seem to be working a new game using UE5.

If Forbidden West is anything to go on Decima is more than a match for Unreal 5.