Doesn’t matter that much, see what Xbox One X does against PRO , for example RDR2. Both designs are continuations of last gen.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Matt weighs in on PS5 I/O, PS5 vs XSX and what it means for PC.
- Thread starter killatopak
- Start date
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
He basically asks, do first party ps5 games look significantly better than first party XSX games. Simple yes no answer.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
It's called reading comprehension, and we know how you like to utilize it
I don't care who he was replying to and I can't trust your word enough to assume he was replying to a warrior or whatever you want to label them as. The quote of his you pull up doesn't invalidate anything the reply I posted, simply reaffirms it. We can already acknowledge how there's nothing quite like it on the market when you look at the specs (granted on paper, we still haven't seen these systems perform in practice) given the figures they have.
If anything you seem wanting to interpret his statement into something it doesn't read as for your own reasons, but not necessarily reasons that figure to best assumed cases of the systems (at least from my POV). Plus the way you implicit the framing of his quote could be interpreted as coming from a console warrior by someone on the outside looking in, which is a bit ironic.
It's not downplaying. It's sensible, nuanced conclusion.
Nvidia seems to get it
Last edited:
Exodia
Banned
Ascend
is right. What is the actual tangible benefits of the GPU scrubber and I/O complex. If you can do everything while being a tiny percentage slower but way more efficient software wise and save money you would.The only problem is that MS pulled the usual gimmping their product. They do it with the surface book. They put a terrible gpu in it on an otherwise great product. Same with surface studio.
So if they put more money and had double the ssd raw speed? 4.8 instead of 2.4? Double the cost yes. But then instead of undercutting sony you price match them and allow your marketing to win. But now they lose both the marketing cause Sony can just pump ssd narratives (true or not) and price cut would be mostly pointless.
But if they did. It would be 5.5 GB/S raw and 8-9GB/s compressed
Versus 4.8 GB/s raw and 9.6 GB/s compressed.
We wont be having this conversation about SSD and there wont be a never ending ssd debate and narrative throughout the next gen.
MS frankly did this to themselves. It's the usual own goal and I'm not really surprised. They do this in every product line. I'm actually shocked there werent more own goals.
As an underdog you would never allow this. Unless you are MS ofcourse.
Last edited:
Stiflers Mom
Banned
Sony
Ir's simply designing hardware in different ways, and neither you nor I or anybody in this Forum has any idea yet which design will turn out to be the better idea in the end.
And Sony gimped their GPU.
The only problem is that MS pulled the usual gimmping their product. They do it with the surface book. They put a terrible gpu in it on an otherwise great product. Same with surface studio.
So they put more money and had double the ssd raw speed? 4.8 instead of 2.4?
It would be 5.5 GB/S raw and 8-9GB/s compressed
Versus 4.8 GB/s raw and 9.6 GB/s.
We wont be having this conversation about SSD and there wont be a never ending ssd debate and narrative throughout the next gen.
MS frankly did this to themselves. It's the usual own goal and I'm not really surprised. They do this in every product line. I'm actually shocked there werent more own goals.
As an underdog you would never allow this. Unless you are MS ofcourse.
Ir's simply designing hardware in different ways, and neither you nor I or anybody in this Forum has any idea yet which design will turn out to be the better idea in the end.
jimbojim
Banned
There is no "still somewhat" .PS5 SSD doesn't use any CPU resources. As Cerny provided a sketch during GDC talk. Why people somehow still trying to overstate XSX SSD compared to PS5 SSD is ridiculous.
No, it is not ridiculous, it is frickin insanity
Last edited:
FranXico
Member
Yes? And how exactly does the quality of exclusives on one side impact the quality of exclusives on the other?
Thirty7ven
Banned
It's called reading comprehension, and we know how you like to utilize it
I don't care who he was replying to and I can't trust your word enough to assume he was replying to a warrior or whatever you want to label them as. The quote of his you pull up doesn't invalidate anything the reply I posted, simply reaffirms it. We can already acknowledge how there's nothing quite like it on the market when you look at the specs (granted on paper, we still haven't seen these systems perform in practice) given the figures they have.
If anything you seem wanting to interpret his statement into something it doesn't read as for your own reasons, but not necessarily reasons that figure to best assumed cases of the systems (at least from my POV). Plus the way you implicit the framing of his quote could be interpreted as coming from a console warrior by someone on the outside looking in, which is a bit ironic.
It's not downplaying. It's sensible, nuanced conclusion.
Nvidia seems to get it
I know all about your sensible nuanced conclusions. The kinds where XVA magically makes up for the gap, and hidden teraflops that widen the gap even more.
Your pattern is obvious as is others. Of course I have my own bias, but I’m not here fighting over Matt’s words on the things Xbox can do and PS5 can’t or can’t as well. It’s you and others that can’t live with what devs say in terms of PS5 advantages. It’s embarrassing.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Oh okay, unfounded character criticism. Pull up some receipts or don't bother. I can rationalize every single one of my opinions on the next-gen hardware and have done so every time.
You must be confusing me for someone else.
The CPU has to send instructions to the I/O controller as per the game logic/code to inform it what to do. This is not any different in concept than what the CPU does in sending work instructions to the GPU.
That's pretty much what I meant. You're the one here making this about a console comparison, I'm discussing about aspects of how these things work in general. Not even implying anything other than just a very simple statement; co-processors have to be instructed by the central processor to initiate tasks. That's how SIMD, single-master CPU architectures in consumer markets tend to function :S
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
The visual Fidelity. Even when PS3 was a bitch to program for their first party studios were able to get amazing results. Their engines tend to be more customized and push their hardware farther and utilize the unique features to a greater extent.
Even with a lower powered GPU and CPU there isn't much reason to expect Sony's first party games to not trade blows or surpass Microsoft's on a visual front.
I never said that they would impact Microsoft exclusives. Only that the SSD isn't going to magically make Sony's games have features that can't be done on Xbox.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Coding "to the metal" doesn't have any profound effect on visual fidelity in and of itself. It depends on what you're coding to the metal for. And FWIW, low-level API access through DX12U is much lower than previous versions.
Realistically you wouldn't want to code completely bare-to-metal these days due to A: complexity in modern architectures and B: risk of screwing over forward-compatibility when newer architectural changes, OS kernel changes etc. come about. More and more the software would need to be recoded for those new platforms or simply not work on them.
And with growing importance of digital libraries and linked digital entertainment economies, you would want to preserve at least some slice of hardware to be isolated from devs through abstraction layers, both for forward-compatibility and security concerns.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
How in anyway is the XSX gimped? How fast is the SSD solution compared to what is in consoles now? On top of all that the XSX storage solution is simple and elegant and easy to upgrade. We have no idea what the competition will do aside from needing a storage device that isn't on the market yet.
The only problem is that MS pulled the usual gimmping their product. They do it with the surface book. They put a terrible gpu in it on an otherwise great product. Same with surface studio.
So if they put more money and had double the ssd raw speed? 4.8 instead of 2.4? Double the cost yes. But then instead of undercutting sony you price match them and allow your marketing to win. But now they lose both the marketing cause Sony can just pump ssd narratives (true or not) and price cut would be mostly pointless.
But if they did. It would be 5.5 GB/S raw and 8-9GB/s compressed
Versus 4.8 GB/s raw and 9.6 GB/s compressed.
We wont be having this conversation about SSD and there wont be a never ending ssd debate and narrative throughout the next gen.
MS frankly did this to themselves. It's the usual own goal and I'm not really surprised. They do this in every product line. I'm actually shocked there werent more own goals.
As an underdog you would never allow this. Unless you are MS ofcourse.
If the more robust GPU, faster CPU, RAM bandwidth, and bus speeds are all deemed 'insignifant' by XBOX detractors then I fully expect all PS5 games to be demonstrably better than what is on XSX. It is a 50% improvement in I/O correct? There is no way you wouldn't see that in 3rd party titles. Those are the only titles where you can make an apples to apples comparison. Once that happens we can conclude that the XSX is indeed gimped.
jimbojim
Banned
But this exactly the thread about comparison between the two. If you talking about how it works in general, good, but PS5 is different. Do you see some blue stuff in the CPU and how I/O complex is developed in PS5? I don't. Otherwise Cerny would mentioned it that PS5 SSD does use CPU resources for I/O ( surely would be marked with some blue stuff ), but it doesn't.
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Like I said in my original post unless something changes with Microsofts first party. Dx12 does offer similar capabilities to "code to the metal" but from people I've talked to on the matter it isn't quite there yet I'm terms of compared to Sony. Specifically during this generation.
I am not going to pretend I know the inner workings of either system as I am not a programmer and have not touched either box. But my time in the industry gave me enough to form an educated opinion.
But this was all pre ps5, XSX and dx12u. It seems slipspace has been built with new DX features in mind and maybe they will get there.
jimbojim
Banned
The only problem is that MS pulled the usual gimmping their product. They do it with the surface book. They put a terrible gpu in it on an otherwise great product. Same with surface studio.
So if they put more money and had double the ssd raw speed? 4.8 instead of 2.4? Double the cost yes. But then instead of undercutting sony you price match them and allow your marketing to win. But now they lose both the marketing cause Sony can just pump ssd narratives (true or not) and price cut would be mostly pointless.
But if they did. It would be 5.5 GB/S raw and 8-9GB/s compressed
Versus 4.8 GB/s raw and 9.6 GB/s compressed.
We wont be having this conversation about SSD and there wont be a never ending ssd debate and narrative throughout the next gen.
MS frankly did this to themselves. It's the usual own goal and I'm not really surprised. They do this in every product line. I'm actually shocked there werent more own goals.
As an underdog you would never allow this. Unless you are MS ofcourse.
Right about what? MS had different priorities for developing XSX, Sony also had different priorities too. I'm sure MS talked to devs and what they want from next Xbox. MS decided that 2.4 GB/s is enough
Last edited:
FranXico
Member
People are misinformed indeed.
The PS5 I/O subsystem has a custom dedicated unit that handles all traffic between the SSD and the CPU and GPU.
The XsX "1/10th of a CPU core" has much more active control over its I/O than the PS5 CPU.
Exodia
Banned
He's not a mod or a developer. Why do ppl keep saying that?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
But this exactly the thread about comparison between the two. If you talking about how it works in general, good, but PS5 is different. Do you see some blue stuff in the CPU and how I/O complex is developed in PS5? I don't. Otherwise Cerny would mentioned it that PS5 SSD does use CPU resources for I/O ( surely would be marked with some blue stuff ), but it doesn't.
They wouldn't bring attention to it because it's nothing worth bringing attention to. You don't see a connection between the GPU and CPU in that graphic, either. Doesn't mean the GPU doesn't receive initial instructions from the CPU to do its taskwork (via Infinity Fabric in AMD's case, or NVLink with Nvidia, etc.)
That is literally what I am describing here, nothing more. You're making a mountain out of a molehill for no good reason.
TBF the XBO itself was a big factor in that; the system wasn't designed with then-next gen gaming at the forefront of its design language so it couldn't utilize the benefits of DX11 (and later 12) to the fullest of their ability.
I don't doubt an engine with as much resources being poured into it as Slipspace has the means to optimize utilization of sensible low-level hardware access as required. But again, just coding something "to-the-metal" doesn't mean the results are going to be any better.
There are still many other variables there and one could argue that as higher-level languages get better at providing optimization for their target platforms and exposure to many low-level hardware features with low overhead through their abstraction layers, increased need to code to-the-metal could be seen as a weakness of API higher-language sophistication/development on a target platform (and optimization thereof) than a strength, especially again considering the general way the industry is shifting towards inter-generational software that's just expected "to work" with newer hardware cycles and digital ecosystems.
Yes this is all common sense but I also thought it'd be common sense for people to conclude that the game code, which runs on the CPU, has to have a means of informing the unit in the I/O block what data to send or retrieve to/from storage/RAM in the first place, and that from those initial instructions the I/O block handles the rest.
In order to do that, the CPU still needs to communicate with the hardware in the I/O block, since the latter is a co-processor (essentially). This couldn't be any more obvious or any less of a deal due to being an assumed function of any hardware featuring a master central processor and dependent co-processors that nonetheless offload the grunt of the work on their own purpose-built hardware.
Last edited:
geordiemp
Member
Matt has no clue, Tim sweeny has no clue, Exodia knows best as usual
Tell us why we should belive a rabid fanboy on GAF ?
Last edited:
jimbojim
Banned
Matt, since his post in that thread on ERA:
had a conversation with member Issen who through conversation had directly implied to XSX SSD :
And Matt replied to that post with this :
VG24/7:Epic rewrite I/O subsystem with PS5 SSD in mind
Side note: the comments were made by Epic's VP of engineering not Tim Sweeney, for any future agitator wanting to call him a liar this isn't the thread . My question is why are the comments from the VP of engineering so offensive?
www.resetera.com
Dory16
Banned
Sony went with variable clocks and the same number of CUs that they have in the Pro and MS is the one that scored an own goal. I think the only issue here is that you (like many people) swallow Sony's claims more than MS's.
The only problem is that MS pulled the usual gimmping their product. They do it with the surface book. They put a terrible gpu in it on an otherwise great product. Same with surface studio.
So if they put more money and had double the ssd raw speed? 4.8 instead of 2.4? Double the cost yes. But then instead of undercutting sony you price match them and allow your marketing to win. But now they lose both the marketing cause Sony can just pump ssd narratives (true or not) and price cut would be mostly pointless.
But if they did. It would be 5.5 GB/S raw and 8-9GB/s compressed
Versus 4.8 GB/s raw and 9.6 GB/s compressed.
We wont be having this conversation about SSD and there wont be a never ending ssd debate and narrative throughout the next gen.
MS frankly did this to themselves. It's the usual own goal and I'm not really surprised. They do this in every product line. I'm actually shocked there werent more own goals.
As an underdog you would never allow this. Unless you are MS ofcourse.
If the specs were exactly reversed, who would you say scored an own goal? I suspect the exact same manufacturer.
ToadMan
Member
52x64x1825x2 / 1x10^6 = 12.1tflops
64 = ROPS/Shaders or whatever.
It doesn’t have to be ROPs, it just fits the number MS gave.
The only problem is that MS pulled the usual gimmping their product. They do it with the surface book. They put a terrible gpu in it on an otherwise great product. Same with surface studio.
So if they put more money and had double the ssd raw speed? 4.8 instead of 2.4? Double the cost yes. But then instead of undercutting sony you price match them and allow your marketing to win. But now they lose both the marketing cause Sony can just pump ssd narratives (true or not) and price cut would be mostly pointless.
But if they did. It would be 5.5 GB/S raw and 8-9GB/s compressed
Versus 4.8 GB/s raw and 9.6 GB/s compressed.
We wont be having this conversation about SSD and there wont be a never ending ssd debate and narrative throughout the next gen.
MS frankly did this to themselves. It's the usual own goal and I'm not really surprised. They do this in every product line. I'm actually shocked there werent more own goals.
As an underdog you would never allow this. Unless you are MS ofcourse.
lol as if any average gamer gives a shit about raw ssd Speed. They don’t even know what it means.
What they DO care about is storage size:
And 1000 > 825.
they KNOW that with 1000 you can fit more games.
just look at Smartphones, people pay so much more for more phone storage. It’s worth a LOT to them and they know what it means to them.
but storage speed? Meh.
And if this is gimping, what is the PS5 then?
variable GPU clock, variable CPU clock, why not sustained?
Why not higher bandwidth RAM?
Last edited:
jimbojim
Banned
You don't need to see because it was a part about SSD and where it goes, but CPU wasn't part of it for a reason. Isn't it? The slide show where GPU and CPU had a connection was when Cerny talked about SmartShift
ToadMan
Member
Well since devs will target the PS5 and port to Xsex, FPS shouldn’t be a factor - they’ll cap at 30 or 60... not worth doing anything else for 2 or 3 extra Xsex frames.
Raytracing ... so far a total unknown. If Minecraft quality at low frames and res is the best that will come of it, it’s a waste of money and time.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Come on Sony announce the new date. We need to see what these specs look like..........
jimbojim
Banned
But he was a mod. Maybe
MasterCornholio
doesn't know that. Regarding is he a dev. I've heard it numerous times.
jimbojim
Banned
It is more capable, surely, but the problem is RT is scaling with resolution, and if we talking about full path RT, it's damn power hungry and bandwidth starved. Sony want to have a same quality RT like on PS5 like RT on XSX, they just need to lower resolution on PS5. RT Minecraft demo on XSX was nice, but it's Minecraft after all. And also, Minecraft demo on XSX was less complex and in fps it ran worse compared to PC version on which was ran on much more powerful setup ( RTX 2080Ti )
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
You don't need to see because it was a part about SSD and where it goes, but CPU wasn't part of it for a reason. Isn't it? The slide show where GPU and CPU had a connection was when Cerny talked about SmartShift
I dunno why you're bringing up Smartshift, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was referring to the Infinity Fabric interconnect along the APU components like CPU and GPU. That's how they communicate with one another.
It's also worth stating that the I/O block isn't a part of the APU itself, but a separate co-processor that connects to it. I'd assume it's over PCIe 4.0, but it wouldn't need too many links since the CPU only needs to instruct it on what data to access to/from storage or to/from RAM, those instructions wouldn't need a lot of bandwidth to query up.
Curious if it's a cache-coherent link like CCIX which is stacked on top of PCIe. Maybe, but maybe not since I'd think having a CCIX interconnect and cache coherency engines in the I/O block might be a bit redundant.
As to the Matt stuff, the poster themselves didn't seem to be saying anything too controversial. Truth is we still need to SEE how these solutions perform in actual full games, that goes to both systems. Simply stating that isn't downplaying a solution, but maybe that poster thought it would be assumed that way because they were simply stating this belief to an insider/dev on a forum board notorious for being somewhat strict on what conversations or narratives can be discussed (I mean that in general but I'm certain some of it permeates into the Gaming side a bit, too).
So that seemed more like a way for the poster to dissuade people from jumping to that conclusion through them merely stating a reasonable opinion i.e we still need to see how these things perform in real use-cases with our own eyes, rather than simply taking another person's word for it.
Bladed Thesis
Member
Didn't Sweeney say PCs would be surpassed by consoles in 2005? And then in 2013?
Sweeney is a genius but lets not pretend he's somehow exempt from pushing hyperbole. I think you'll find he's got quite an extensive tracklist of saying new consoles would surpass PCs, going back several generations. Anybody coming out on either side isn't somehow above reproach or doubt or questioning.
I think the key thing now is people need to stop bashing one console over the other at every fucking chance. Both sides have got amazing machines in their future and right now comparing the two with theories and then using those theories to bash the other side over the head does nobody any good. I see people on both sides being like "why can we celebrate" out one side of their mouth while also using every chance possible to bash the other side. It's what has made the Next-Gen thread and Xbox meme thread and others turn into absolute circlejerks for one side or the other while Nintendo fans sit in the corner with their helmets on and play games made for 10 year olds and anime fans.
Like why can't the huge fans on either side just be happy and stop having to compare their future hardware to the other in some "one up" game? Certain Xbox fans have been almost unbearable for going on four months now and certain Sony fans are quickly getting there. Just chill, fanatics, and be happy we're getting insane games soon here.
Last edited:
Exodia
Banned
THE:MILKMAN
Member
I don't believe that is true. The graph in Road to PS5 isn't literal. All those I/O blocks are indeed within the single APU die I'm sure.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
It's possible, and probably likely. In fact looking at it now it does look like it'd be a part of the APU itself, my mistake.
Still curious what the interconnect with the other components would be, then. Most likely Infinity Fabric, but to what amount of SerDes lanes and the configuration itself is a mystery.
No, 64 is the number of shaders per cu. Rops are independent and the number of rops does not correlate with the number of shaders. This is why both the 40cu 5700xt and 36cu 5700 have 64 rops.
ToadMan
Member
You’ll see the difference as soon as someone uploads a video of a load into a multiplat game. We’re gonna see side by side timings on release day of whichever console comes out second.
PS5 should be more or less twice the speed. If MS didn’t do things right they’ll be slower than half speed - that would mean that direct storage is not that great and/or their 2 speed memory and vram limit are a bottleneck.
The next place you’ll see it is when DF check texture resolution - if multiplat studios are gonna target PS5 max quality and “scale down” for other platforms, textures will be the giveaway.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Yeah most likely some sort of IF and really the I/O blocks will just be in addition to the multimedia engine and display engine already in Navi? Just these additions will probably add another 20-30mm2 to the die size. I wonder if they have different clocks or all run at the CPU or GPU clocks?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Good question. Maybe for the amount of expected data traffic to handle it won't need to run at either of clocks, but it's possible they might run at the CPU clock since IIRC the processing unit (and some of the other parts like the coherency engines) are essentially stripped down/repurposed Zen 2 cores.
If they aren't running at the CPU's clock they might run at the clock of the base frequency Zen 2 cores in say the 4600U, which is 2.1 GHz to 3 GHz.
Aceofspades
Banned
Sony has outdone MS yet again with PS5. They knew that SSDs is the most revolutionary generational step and they simply designed a marvelous APU that is praised by everyone. GPU differences is the smallest we have ever seen in any console generation and that's a FACT.
PS5 has tons of co-processors that offload tasks from CPU/GPU, XSX might have some of that but not to same degree otherwise Microsoft will be shouting that from top of their roofs.
PS5 has the way better audio chip ( to do the same in XsX you will have to take resources from CPU/GPU. You might not be able to replicate Tempest Engine if at all)
PS5 has way more capable I/O solution and more than double the bandwidth ( largest difference between the two systems)
Lets ignore Xbox strange RAM setup and simply say that XsX has faster Ram than PS5, don't forget that XsX GPU needs to feed 52CUs with data while PS5 Ram can be more than sufficient for 36CUs.
Only area where Xbox has clear advantage to me is Raytracing due to having 16 more CUs than PS5. We still needs to examine RT performance with high clocks, PS5 might surprise in this area.
So in Summary:
CPU: XSX >= PS5 (Different is so small not even worth mentioning)
GPU: XSX > PS5 (18% smallest difference ever)
I/O : PS5 >>> XSX (all I/O tasks is offloaded on PS5, universally praised system)
Ram: XsX>=PS5 ( this one is tricky because XSX weird ram setup and requirement to feed more CUs on XSX)
Audio: PS5>>>XSX (TE has never been done before, superior audio to ALL users)
SSD: PS5>>>>XSX ( more than double the BW coupled with crazy good I/O)
RT: XSX >>? PS5 ( 16 more CUs means more IE but we still don't know high clock effects in RT)
Lets not forget the most important thing for any gaming device:
The controller: PS5 >>> XSX
Looking at the overall package, its clear that PS5 is easily the more thought out and superior system. I expect $499 for both but Microsoft should be hard pressed to price match Sony otherwise their system would look less appealing giving the technical specs.
PS5 has tons of co-processors that offload tasks from CPU/GPU, XSX might have some of that but not to same degree otherwise Microsoft will be shouting that from top of their roofs.
PS5 has the way better audio chip ( to do the same in XsX you will have to take resources from CPU/GPU. You might not be able to replicate Tempest Engine if at all)
PS5 has way more capable I/O solution and more than double the bandwidth ( largest difference between the two systems)
Lets ignore Xbox strange RAM setup and simply say that XsX has faster Ram than PS5, don't forget that XsX GPU needs to feed 52CUs with data while PS5 Ram can be more than sufficient for 36CUs.
Only area where Xbox has clear advantage to me is Raytracing due to having 16 more CUs than PS5. We still needs to examine RT performance with high clocks, PS5 might surprise in this area.
So in Summary:
CPU: XSX >= PS5 (Different is so small not even worth mentioning)
GPU: XSX > PS5 (18% smallest difference ever)
I/O : PS5 >>> XSX (all I/O tasks is offloaded on PS5, universally praised system)
Ram: XsX>=PS5 ( this one is tricky because XSX weird ram setup and requirement to feed more CUs on XSX)
Audio: PS5>>>XSX (TE has never been done before, superior audio to ALL users)
SSD: PS5>>>>XSX ( more than double the BW coupled with crazy good I/O)
RT: XSX >>? PS5 ( 16 more CUs means more IE but we still don't know high clock effects in RT)
Lets not forget the most important thing for any gaming device:
The controller: PS5 >>> XSX
Looking at the overall package, its clear that PS5 is easily the more thought out and superior system. I expect $499 for both but Microsoft should be hard pressed to price match Sony otherwise their system would look less appealing giving the technical specs.
ToadMan
Member
I’m gonna assume 64 ROPs because that fits with the AMD tech level MS have been working with.
Having a different number is entirely possible but requires a bigger leap of faith since we don’t have any data.
One day we’ll find out.
Vaztu
Member
Don't care about this whole thread. Neither do I care about defending Sweeney.
and
losslessFlac
Member
I know we are going on about graphics and IO. Can we discuss audio for a second? I know XSX has its own audio chip. How's it compare against PS5's tempest? Does it support more or less sound sources? 3D Audio?
If frequency is decoupled from core frequency and runs in sync with memory upto around 1850ish Mhz give or take depending on silicon quality(so 3700 ddr speed). Renoir is supposed to have higher clocking IF upto 1900+ Mhz.
Since the consoles are using 14gbps gddr6 seems likely that the IF will be clocked at 1750Mhz to be in sync.
Would be better to not assume and wait for the information.
Exodia
Banned
Gimped is not the right choice of words. But rather they had the option to make it significantly faster. The way i see it.
MS was aiming for a specific speed and had a raw SSD speed in mind with probable price. Some engineers came out and said we can do this that and the other and tremendously improve the speed using software also. Then MS executives then said why the hell do we need 4.8? lets do like 2.4. Its cheaper. blah blah blah.
That's the way i see it. Its a horrible decision. why? people Don't look at special software implementation, or "coding to the metal" when they buy stuff.
Everytime i buy a consumer electronic, i look at raw specs period. Everyone does. They look at raw stats. Specific specs. Before it was GPU, CPU and RAM. Those are the only three you had and you had to PR and market the hell out of that.
But now with next gen, we finally get a new comer SSD. By purposely leaving the raw speed at 2.4 while knowing that Sony will use one with raw speed double that. They personally CREATED the valcuum for a new WAR. SSD Wars. A war that had the capacity to change the TF narrative in which they were pushing. Its a complete failure on their part. They frankly didn't learn their lesson from last gen or from any other category MS is involved in.
When people buy consumer electronics. They are only focusing on raw specs and that's it. 95% of gamers are not on reddit or gaming forums. They do a quick search, look at quick specs and they are done. If they happen to stumble on one of Sony's PR SSD narrative none-sense. It only takes just a little bit for them to be convinced. They will look over the raw specs and say "Hmm this article does has a point, their SSD is 2x faster."
Its very easy to market 12 over 10 TFLOPs. that's why no one buys Cerny's wide vs narrow none-sense.
Its very easy to market 5.5 GB/s over 2.4 GB/s and claim that your game is impossible on any other platform.
But its almost impossible to market SFS or DirectStorage. Because its not a raw spec that can be compared.
It really doesn't matter how the SSD/IO solutions result in the real worlds. Its still an initial marketing loss. Especially for an underdog its not good. From now through the end of the first year of next gen. There will be an onslaught of SSD none-sense in the media. Everyday there's a new SSD Hype and FUD article. Its ridiculous and it will continue and the causal gamers will stumble upon it.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
But he was a mod. Maybe
I didn't know he's not a mod anymore. And as for being a developer I heard that from many people.
Didn't mean any harm with my post.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Sounds pretty good, I figure it would have to be synced to some sort of clock but not necessarily a system clock
I don't 100% agree with every point you arrive to here but in terms of the general angle of things you have some strong points worth acknowledging. Mainly, MS kind of dropped the ball in prioritizing what to message and how to message it when it comes to aspects of their hardware design because while they did mention about SFS, DirectStorage, XvA (which those other two things fall under) etc., they led with TF and did so at a time when most people only cared about TF.
It wasn't until Road to PS5 where the narrative as a whole started shifting to the SSD, even if there were seeds being laid much earlier. I think MS could've gotten out in front of that and started talking of and demonstrating their SSD I/O tech ahead of Sony, even if they knew it wouldn't be quite as powerful in the SSD I/O side. Coupling that with actual proof of the technology working and doing so in ways to essentially sell instant load times, seamless streaming of high-quality assets etc. would've gone a long way to convince people much earlier of its benefits because even if Sony's numbers were better, they wouldn't have much to show that would be easily identifiable as being a mark ahead of what MS had, to the average gamer, and that's ultimately the main impression which would matter because even if tech heads could try arguing otherwise, everyone would simply point to the actual demonstrated results.
And all of that could've been done ahead of Sony going full-tilt with their SSD. They could've even eased a bit on the TF hype and if that led people to think they had less for a bit then so be it, because they could simply reveal their actual TF performance after Sony did and left it at that. So it would've covered the TF side of things (albeit just in terms of paper specs anyway), and they would've been covered their SSD I/O along the hardware and software side to a point where they could've paint the impression you are already getting instant loading, asset streaming etc. with their own solution in actual real-world use-cases.
Instead they're now on the defensive regarding the SSD I/O and have to prove a lot more that their solution can keep up in terms of perceptible measures that the vast majority of gamers will appreciate and (more importantly) appear negligible in terms of performance difference to Sony's. Through whatever technological means they have to do such is down to them, but that's basically where the narrative has shifted to.
So yeah, essentially I agree it was MS's narrative control to lose and they kinda lost it, now they have to demonstrate their I/O solution (when combined with the other hardware advantages) can provide results comparable to the UE5 demo and do so within the next month or so at latest. Good luck to them on that.
Last edited:
FALCON_KICK
Member
Has anyone(Digital foundry? or personally done and uploaded to Youtube) done a test analyzing how the Xbox series X SSD solution fares compared to PC-SSD solution with the game 'State of Decay' showcased in 'Microsoft's loading times tech demo that displays the difference in speed between the Xbox Series X and the Xbox One'
The demo showcased only Xbox 1 vs Xbox series X. A test done with PC version of State of decay 2 and compared with Xbox Series X video(linked above) would be quite helpful in understanding the advantages of Xbox unique solution like DirectStorage/XVA implemented for their SSD.
Last edited: