• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Microsoft Responds to Optimized Launch Game Performance Issues

Jul 6, 2015
5,417
4,666
620
I have to say, with the damage control and Spencer talking about apathy towards their product, I'm guessing the XSX isn't seeing the demand that they hoped.
Microsoft needed the power advantage way more than Sony did. If the two are equal then ppl will buy multiplats on their preferred console or where all their friends are and Sony has way more ppl that buy their console than Microsoft does. Microsoft are the ones that need this as a selling point to convince ppl to convert, not as much for Sony, if it's equal or near equal Sony are the ones left in the better position.
 

Kumomeme

Member
Mar 20, 2017
1,693
1,829
455
Malaysia
Not just XSX 'scratching on the surface'...PS5 too
Like previous gen, no way devs already tap all the juice in console right away after launch. Dont expect what we see now is representative of next 2-3 years ahead.

Even if MS manage to fix their 'bug' and 'tools' issue, at first 1-2 years, first wave of next gen game i doubt we see much different between both platform. Even now PS5 has no problem reach certain game at 4k and 60 fps. When XSX also reach same performance, it wont still be much different since both reach the same performance level. Only stuff can be made into comparison is in game setting stuff, like texture,effect etc. XSX should has an edge on paper due to extra tf and faster ram/cpu but PS5 still has fast storage and smartshift/other features for example.

After 2-3 years ahead, after first wave of next gen game we might be finally see the 'clear' differences of performance between these 2 consoles. Assuming Xbox GDK is 'fixed', they should has edge in term of performance and ray tracing compared to PS5 during this moment. But i doubt there gonna be staggering differences. 30% claim by certain member here is purely delusional. Not to mention API made for single unit of hardware surely can 'code to the metal' more than API made for multiple device like Xbox's Direct X. I doubt there gonna be huge gap between both. And by this time, Sony's first party studio already release their next wave of big hitters of exclusives. The advantages of 3rd party performance XSX 'finally' have might not has much impact anymore. Basically at this point, Sony already sprint full speed ahead while MS just finished their warm up session. Unless MS manage to release a first party exclusives(which is also might get held back by XSS) that on par with Sony counterpart quality.

Basically due to the launch screw up by MS (tools, performance issue and no first party exclusives) might actually affect them in long term more than what people expect.
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
686
2,143
340
I think there were a couple of reasons Sony stuck with the 36CU GPU, one being to make BC easier, and the other was to make the changeover from PS4 development to PS5 as easy and familiar as possible. Thats my thoughts, not claiming Sony said this.

And another reason was that the next logical stop would have been 52 CUs (like MS), but that was expensive, and Sony wanted to invest that money into SSD and I/O.

This generation is basically is a case study for two different approaches: MS believes that a wider GPU will bring them the best results. Sony believes that uninterrupted and high-speed data throughput is the key to getting better results. So each company invested in those respective areas.

Neither company had a magic ball. It'll be interesting to see who was correct.

So far it seems like Sony got it right more than MS. And to be honest, if I were betting, I wouldn't bet against Mark Cerny. His record speaks for itself.
 

Mobilemofo

Member
Apr 14, 2019
430
380
270
The point is, the system is supposed to be more powerful, it already is on paper, hopefully you people don't get your panties in a twist when XSX suddenly starts outperforming your champion.

Sony camp members seem to be basking in sort of misguided glory off of a launch that just barely just happened 😂, as if these issues won't be sorted out.

Quite laughable that ya'll seem to be overjoyed for parity or just because you're barely beating out competition with a few extra frames here and there and some neglible quicker load times.

Also, you want to talk about games? What would incline me in spending money on a ps5? For what? What does it have that warrants me spending money on it right now?

On the flip side, I have a massive backlog of games that I want to get through whenever I get my hands on a XSX. That's justification enough for me to buy one.

Lmfao.

The 'lmfao' just to add that he isn't crying about the current position Xbox find themselves in. 😅 And, as we all know, 'powaaahhh' is everything.
 

MrFunSocks

Banned
Jul 9, 2020
3,018
5,441
645
So far it seems like Sony got it right more than MS. And to be honest, if I were betting, I wouldn't bet against Mark Cerny. His record speaks for itself.
How so? Both cost the same and both are performing nigh on identical, but one has 200GB more SSD space than the other.

What record of Cerny's speaks for itself btw? Marble Madness and Knack? An off the shelf x86 hardware PS4 that just got extremely lucky with RAM, otherwise they would have had 4GB vs the Xbox's 8GB, which would have been a massive disadvantage? Not sure why people think Cerny is some gaming god.

If the PS5 was $100 cheaper and had parity then sure, Sony might have gotten it more right, but it isn't. It's the same price (and they're eating a big loss on the $100 cheaper DE). Their super duper high clocked GPU with less CUs is getting parity with the slower wider GPU. How is that sony "getting it more right"? Getting parity at the same price is getting it more right?
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
686
2,143
340
How so? Both cost the same and both are performing nigh on identical, but one has 200GB more SSD space than the other.

What record of Cerny's speaks for itself btw? Marble Madness and Knack? An off the shelf x86 hardware PS4 that just got extremely lucky with RAM, otherwise they would have had 4GB vs the Xbox's 8GB, which would have been a massive disadvantage? Not sure why people think Cerny is some gaming god.

If the PS5 was $100 cheaper and had parity then sure, Sony might have gotten it more right, but it isn't. It's the same price (and they're eating a big loss on the $100 cheaper DE). Their super duper high clocked GPU with less CUs is getting parity with the slower wider GPU. How is that sony "getting it more right"? Getting parity at the same price is getting it more right?

You think Mark Cerny only made Knack? Look up his resume. More than half the industry uses his game development methods.

How did Sony get it right?

The results. XSX's GPU advantage has been nullified by a much more cost-effective solution, so much so that MS has been giving clarifications and controlling damage that "we are working with our partners to resolve the issues" lol. PS5's GPU has been outperforming XSX's at less cost, that's an advantage. I thought after 12 > 10, Xbox fans would be better at Math 😂

And it's a HUGE advantage when you see that PS5 has significant advantages in other areas because of that GPU efficiency, e.g., data throughput, SSD, and controller.

Lastly, because of that cost-effective GPU solution, Sony managed to make the entire PS5 at a cheaper cost than XSX (despite having advantages in other areas). The last reported BOM was $450 for PS5 and $480 for XSX.

Where's the advantage of XSX after spending so much money?
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
May 11, 2013
2,779
4,461
870
England
I don’t see anyone pushing hardware “conspiracies.”

The only thing I see is people trying to show Xbox fans that all that marketing about 12 teraflops and “most powerful console ever” was exactly that. Marketing.

The reality of the situation is that the hardware in each console is different. And as many people, myself included, have been saying for MONTHS is that you can’t boil a console’s potential ability down to one magical number called teraflops.

And now you’re seeing the result. PS5 performs equally or better than the Xbox. And Xbox has to walk back their marketing and do damage control PR because their obvious BS has been called out, shown up, and thoroughly debunked by actual real world games.

That is not a hardware conspiracy. Those are the facts, and blind fanboys need to accept it or they’re going to have a rough ride this generation.

You do realise 12 teraflops isn't marketing? It's an actual figure that comes from the number of compute units and clock speeds. It's a reality.
As well as the memory bandwidth being higher and the CPU running faster, they are the actual facts.
The generation is more than a few cross gen launch games, we'll see who has the rough ride.
 
Aug 11, 2016
2,823
962
435
You think Mark Cerny only made Knack? Look up his resume. More than half the industry uses his game development methods.

How did Sony get it right?

The results. XSX's GPU advantage has been nullified by a much more cost-effective solution, so much so that MS has been giving clarifications and controlling damage that "we are working with our partners to resolve the issues" lol. PS5's GPU has been outperforming XSX's at less cost, that's an advantage. I thought after 12 > 10, Xbox fans would be better at Math 😂

And it's a HUGE advantage when you see that PS5 has significant advantages in other areas because of that GPU efficiency, e.g., data throughput, SSD, and controller.

Lastly, because of that cost-effective GPU solution, Sony managed to make the entire PS5 at a cheaper cost than XSX (despite having advantages in other areas). The last reported BOM was $450 for PS5 and $480 for XSX.

Where's the advantage of XSX after spending so much money?

How is the GPU solution so cost effective when they have to put it in a huge box with a giant heat sink? Seems to me both consoles took a different design approach and they're both good. What's the problem?
 

Kagey K

Member
Dec 18, 2013
9,896
13,713
985
You think Mark Cerny only made Knack? Look up his resume. More than half the industry uses his game development methods.

How did Sony get it right?

The results. XSX's GPU advantage has been nullified by a much more cost-effective solution, so much so that MS has been giving clarifications and controlling damage that "we are working with our partners to resolve the issues" lol. PS5's GPU has been outperforming XSX's at less cost, that's an advantage. I thought after 12 > 10, Xbox fans would be better at Math 😂

And it's a HUGE advantage when you see that PS5 has significant advantages in other areas because of that GPU efficiency, e.g., data throughput, SSD, and controller.

Lastly, because of that cost-effective GPU solution, Sony managed to make the entire PS5 at a cheaper cost than XSX (despite having advantages in other areas). The last reported BOM was $450 for PS5 and $480 for XSX.

Where's the advantage of XSX after spending so much money?
I wouldn’t call an edge for a few cross platform games 2 weeks after launch a win or loss for anybody.

Seems a bit too soon for that.

Valhalla and Black Flag seem to have a parallel where they were built for last gen and showed parity on both systems only to see the PS4 squeak ahead after a few patches.

Looks like Valhalla is going to do the same, but in favor for Xbox.

Might be a good time to sit back and wait, instead of trying to declare winners and losers.
 

MrFunSocks

Banned
Jul 9, 2020
3,018
5,441
645
You think Mark Cerny only made Knack? Look up his resume. More than half the industry uses his game development methods.

How did Sony get it right?

The results. XSX's GPU advantage has been nullified by a much more cost-effective solution, so much so that MS has been giving clarifications and controlling damage that "we are working with our partners to resolve the issues" lol. PS5's GPU has been outperforming XSX's at less cost, that's an advantage. I thought after 12 > 10, Xbox fans would be better at Math 😂

And it's a HUGE advantage when you see that PS5 has significant advantages in other areas because of that GPU efficiency, e.g., data throughput, SSD, and controller.

Lastly, because of that cost-effective GPU solution, Sony managed to make the entire PS5 at a cheaper cost than XSX (despite having advantages in other areas). The last reported BOM was $450 for PS5 and $480 for XSX.

Where's the advantage of XSX after spending so much money?
More cost effective? The consoles are the same price lol. How is it more cost effective?

In order for the smaller less expensive GPU to be able to potentially match the Xbox's they needed a bigger console, bigger cooling system, and had to spend more money on the SSD and other parts of the system. You couldn't just take the GPU from the PS5 and put it in the Series X and have the same performance.
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
686
2,143
340
More cost effective? The consoles are the same price lol. How is it more cost effective?

More cost-effective for Sony (as they spent less on that GPU that, at its worst, still performs at par with a costlier GPU). But it also has tricklling benefits for users because Sony can make PS5 DE at $399.

You've completely ignored my other very valid points, btw.
 
Last edited:

MrFunSocks

Banned
Jul 9, 2020
3,018
5,441
645
More cost-effective for Sony (as they spent less on that GPU that, at its worst, still performs at par with a costlier GPU). But it also has tricklling benefits for users because Sony can make PS5 DE at $399.

You've completely ignored my other very valid points, btw.
lol but like I said, while the GPU is likely less expensive they had to increase costs elsewhere to make up for it. Sony are taking a big loss on the PS5 DE, that's why by all reports they barely made any. That has nothing to do with your imagined cost of the GPU lol. Again - the cost of their SSD system probably outweighs that of the smaller GPU.

You saying your other points are "very valid" doesn't make them so.

Both machines cost USD$499. The PS5 isn't more "cost effective". Same price, same performance so far. You are making no sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Godzilla Emu

DForce

Member
Nov 23, 2017
4,440
8,214
525
I wouldn’t call an edge for a few cross platform games 2 weeks after launch a win or loss for anybody.

Seems a bit too soon for that.

Valhalla and Black Flag seem to have a parallel where they were built for last gen and showed parity on both systems only to see the PS4 squeak ahead after a few patches.

Looks like Valhalla is going to do the same, but in favor for Xbox.

Might be a good time to sit back and wait, instead of trying to declare winners and losers.


There's a difference.

Assassins Creed Black Flag was locked at 900p and then increased to 1080p with no performance penalty.


Assassins Creed Valhalla uses a dynamic resolution on both consoles, and the PlayStation 5 maintains a more consistent higher resolution over the Xbox Series X. If it was in fact a similar situation, Assassins Creed Valhalla would hold a higher resolution compared to the PlayStation 5, but it doesn't. Its either the same or a bit lower on average.
 

TheDreadLord

Member
Jun 8, 2013
365
426
570
There's a difference.

Assassins Creed Black Flag was locked at 900p and then increased to 1080p with no performance penalty.


Assassins Creed Valhalla uses a dynamic resolution on both consoles, and the PlayStation 5 maintains a more consistent higher resolution over the Xbox Series X. If it was in fact a similar situation, Assassins Creed Valhalla would hold a higher resolution compared to the PlayStation 5, but it doesn't. Its either the same or a bit lower on average.
As far as I remember the DF video, AssCreed Vikings runs better at 4K in the XSX in what they called fidelity mode or whatever.
 

Kumomeme

Member
Mar 20, 2017
1,693
1,829
455
Malaysia
And another reason was that the next logical stop would have been 52 CUs (like MS), but that was expensive, and Sony wanted to invest that money into SSD and I/O.

This generation is basically is a case study for two different approaches: MS believes that a wider GPU will bring them the best results. Sony believes that uninterrupted and high-speed data throughput is the key to getting better results. So each company invested in those respective areas.

Neither company had a magic ball. It'll be interesting to see who was correct.

So far it seems like Sony got it right more than MS. And to be honest, if I were betting, I wouldn't bet against Mark Cerny. His record speaks for itself.
Another reason im guessing that the design philosophy between the two company is MS prioritize fps and ray tracing. Notice how they boast 120fps claim and raytracing demo(minecraft and Gears for example) at firsthand. So this reflect to the higher cu number and faster cpu/ram but less on ssd.

While Sony prioritize on ease burden of developers, make development easy and allow for devs to 'dream further' bypass technical limitation. Sony multiple times highlight this like how Cerny's presentation of shorter time taken by developers to familiar with the console and faster ssd potential for game development. So this reflect on design that has less cu, faster clock gpu with super fast ssd(that some people might said overkill) and similliar development kit tools.(the Crytek devs also claim that less cu number made it easier for developers)

Going foward if both company gonna release midgen refresh, it gonna be interesting on what direction both company gonna go. I guess for Sony they can improve other weak and scalable aspect like gpu(more cu), faster ram and cpu while keep same ssd specs since it already very fast. While for MS i doubt they can suddenly put super fast ssd just like that, redesign whole I/O, put smartshift etc. since they gonna keep it scalable align with XSS specs and it gonna be base of their first party exclusives game.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Panajev2001a

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
4,125
6,907
675
Well until they sort their stuff out, I suggest using a slightly modified logo on the games ;p

 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
686
2,143
340
lol but like I said, while the GPU is likely less expensive they had to increase costs elsewhere to make up for it. Sony are taking a big loss on the PS5 DE, that's why by all reports they barely made any. That has nothing to do with your imagined cost of the GPU lol. Again - the cost of their SSD system probably outweighs that of the smaller GPU.

You saying your other points are "very valid" doesn't make them so.

Both machines cost USD$499. The PS5 isn't more "cost effective". Same price, same performance so far. You are making no sense.

I am not sure if you genuinely don't understand my point or if you don't want to. Let me assume it's the former and summarize it for you:

1. Xbox spent more on GPU than Sony did.
2. Sony's GPU, while it costs, still performs better or at par with XSX's GPU.
3. Sony saved that GPU money and spent it on SSD, I/O, and DualSense controller -- where it has clear benefits over XSX.

So, PS5 has more net benefits than XSX because of that intelligent design. That was the main point of our conversation, at least when it first started.
 

onesvenus

Member
Aug 26, 2004
967
1,160
1,575
Nope. MS deviated from AMD's architecture of 8/10 CUs per shader array. GPUs that are composed of 80/72 CUs from AMD would have 8 shader arrays. Because the optimal number they deem for each shader array is 8/10 CUs.

What MS did is tacked on 2 Dual CUs at the end of the shader arrays because they cannot afford to put another shader engine (2 shader arrays) which would dramatically increase the size of the die.

So no, it's not the same architecture that AMD itself is using in their RDNA1/2 GPUs. MS introduced 6 Dual CUs at the end of the shader array because they need those CU compute for their cloud computing. But for a GPU designed to render games, those CUs are bottlenecked.


What amazes me about this kind of posts is how someone who, I'm pretty sure has never designed any kind of hardware, knows better than AMD and MS engineers.

Don't you think that something that took you a single slide to see they were also able to see? If you can see it being a problem, don't you think they also did? If posters like you think they are smarter than AMD and MS engineers, I have bad news. If, otherwise, you think that they knowingly released a bad GPU, I need to know your reasoning for that
 
Oct 2, 2020
168
335
265
There's a few things that are inevitable. Games on the XSX will improve, games on the PS5 will improve.

But whether we see the XSX start to leapfrog the PS5 in terms of performance is up for debate. At the moment, it's looking doubtful. And even if the XSX does start to outperform the PS5, the difference will likely be nothing to write home about. It could well be that in a third party title the XSX holds 60fps 99.99% of the time and the PS5 holds it 99.98% of the time.

If we go by history, the PlayStation has always seen noticeable incremental improvements each year. I keep hearing that the Geometry Engine (some hardware voodoo Sony's made) in the PS5 isn't being used yet, so that could end up being like the SPU situation in the PS3, where early games didn't use them at all, later games tapped into their potential, and they were fully utilized a few years into the console's lifecycle.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
686
2,143
340
Well the PS5 version of Valhalla runs worse than Series X after the patch, clearly Series X dev environment was not ready for launch and Phil alluded to as much when he said that they waited for full RDNA2 features before manufacturing started a few months ago, so I expect Series X to pull away from PS5 late 2021 in terms of visual fidelity.

A patch broke the game on PS5, and that means developers will utilize "full RDNA2 features" and XSX will leapfrog PS5 by late 2021


 

Stiflers Mom

Banned
Apr 27, 2012
8,502
12,777
1,150
This will be an interesting gen for sure.
Personally I expect the XSX to pull ahead of the PS5 a bit (but not much) later in the gen.

The 12 TF are there, but to me it seems they cannot utilize them because the setup is more complicated to handle (like how it was with the Amiga vs the ST back in the day, or the 360 vs the PS3), while Sony got their game together right at the beginning with a less convoluted machine.

It's definitely not a good impression for MS at the moment, though.
Even though I was a lot more interested in the Series X so far, I'd be much more inclined to buy a PS5 right now, because they have a few exclusives that look interesting, plus AstroBot together with the Dual Sense give me that "next gen feeling" charm, which the Series X lacks.

Whatever MS cooked up for this gen, it defo needed another year or two to be digestible.
 
Last edited:
Dec 29, 2018
3,529
10,194
745
How so? Both cost the same and both are performing nigh on identical, but one has 200GB more SSD space than the other.

What record of Cerny's speaks for itself btw? Marble Madness and Knack? An off the shelf x86 hardware PS4 that just got extremely lucky with RAM, otherwise they would have had 4GB vs the Xbox's 8GB, which would have been a massive disadvantage? Not sure why people think Cerny is some gaming god.

If the PS5 was $100 cheaper and had parity then sure, Sony might have gotten it more right, but it isn't. It's the same price (and they're eating a big loss on the $100 cheaper DE). Their super duper high clocked GPU with less CUs is getting parity with the slower wider GPU. How is that sony "getting it more right"? Getting parity at the same price is getting it more right?
Fucking hell.
 

Allandor

Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,110
837
405
Germany
Well, computerbase.de did test both systems. Especially the power consumption is interesting while running WD Legion and Dirt 5:


Sony PlayStation 5 im Test - ComputerBase

Seems like the Xbox Series X is really hold back by the software. We know from Gears that it can do much more. I know power-consumption is workload dependent, but it indicates that something really struggles to get the power on the street.
Power-Consumption is even lower than on XB1X or PS4 Pro. This shouldn't happen if a game is maxing out the hardware.


edit:
ups, my mouse was in the way, replaced the screenshot.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
Aug 26, 2004
967
1,160
1,575
We know from Gears that it can do much more
Do we?

Seeing Microsoft using all these excuses is quite fun. They were shouting "Most powerful console" all the time and betting on that to convince undecided people and they failed so hard to really fit that narrative.
I have an XSX because Gamepass brings a lot of value for me but for someone who doesn't value it that way, I can't say the XSX is a better prospect than the PS5. I could say it if third parties were really better there but this first batch of titles doesn't show that. After not having any new first party title at launch, Microsoft really needed to have third parties playing better on their machine. Now it's just a waiting game for something that might not even come (awesome first-party games or better performing third-party ones)
 

mrmeh

Member
Sep 8, 2020
118
107
200
Another reason im guessing that the design philosophy between the two company is MS prioritize fps and ray tracing. Notice how they boast 120fps claim and raytracing demo(minecraft and Gears for example) at firsthand. So this reflect to the higher cu number and faster cpu/ram but less on ssd.

While Sony prioritize on ease burden of developers, make development easy and allow for devs to 'dream further' bypass technical limitation. Sony multiple times highlight this like how Cerny's presentation of shorter time taken by developers to familiar with the console and faster ssd potential for game development. So this reflect on design that has less cu, faster clock gpu with super fast ssd(that some people might said overkill) and similliar development kit tools.(the Crytek devs also claim that less cu number made it easier for developers)

It's not that MS have not focused on making it easy for dev's its just that they have a fair amount of other factors to be mindful of. The switch to the new GDK is so dev's can easily port between PC and Xbox... problem is its new and things take time to get used to and mature so is maybe why Dev's are having issues getting the most out of it. Then there's Direct X so PC devs can write higher level code that can support any 3D graphics card rather than having to write low level code for every 3D card brand(AMD/Nvidia/Intel). Those good things for gamers... but Sony has had a easier path with being able to have a narrow focus on updating their low level PS4 tools to support the new AMD CPU/GPU features.

...PC ports from PS games tend to need allot of work and do not run well.

Given the market and eco systems I think so far both have approached this next gen in a sensible way... will just take time to see how it pans out.
 

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
4,125
6,907
675
Well, computerbase.de did test both systems. Especially the power consumption is interesting while running WD Legion and Dirt 5:


Sony PlayStation 5 im Test - ComputerBase

Seems like the Xbox Series X is really hold back by the software. We know from Gears that it can do much more. I know power-consumption is workload dependent, but it indicates that something really struggles to get the power on the street.
Power-Consumption is even lower than on XB1X or PS4 Pro. This shouldn't happen if a game is maxing out the hardware.

Hard to come up with the conclusion TBH, but generally the higher the frequency the higher the voltage, which raises up in a logarithmic manner, so PS5 having that much higher GPU clock means the voltage is that much higher, resulting in such overall power draw, despite the CU count and 7nm process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rikkori

Batiman

Danger: male feminist
Feb 11, 2020
2,126
2,451
580
I am not sure if you genuinely don't understand my point or if you don't want to. Let me assume it's the former and summarize it for you:

1. Xbox spent more on GPU than Sony did.
2. Sony's GPU, while it costs, still performs better or at par with XSX's GPU.
3. Sony saved that GPU money and spent it on SSD, I/O, and DualSense controller -- where it has clear benefits over XSX.

So, PS5 has more net benefits than XSX because of that intelligent design. That was the main point of our conversation, at least when it first started.
Your also not taking into account all the money Sony saved for poor build quality. And now many users are stuck with borderline defective hardware. A lottery of three fans in which most consoles sound like ass. I’d take less hardware power for higher build quality any day.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

On Demand

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,884
3,304
695
Your also not taking into account all the money Sony saved for poor build quality. And now many users are stuck with borderline defective hardware. A lottery of three fans in which most consoles sound like ass. I’d take less hardware power for higher build quality any day.

PS5 doesn’t have poor build quality and not the reason consoles are breaking. This is normal launch problems. SX is having consoles break too.

Same thing happened at the beginning of last generation. It’s like you people are new to console launches

 
Last edited:

Esppiral

Member
Nov 19, 2018
1,223
1,474
395
Maybe they perform badly because the games are optimized for instead of ported to?

Just speculating
 

Batiman

Danger: male feminist
Feb 11, 2020
2,126
2,451
580
PS5 doesn’t have poor build quality and not the reason consoles are breaking. This is normal launch problems. SX is having consoles break too.

Same thing happened at the beginning of last generation. It’s like you people are new to console launches

I have to disagree. I know every launch console has issues but Sony never seems to learn from their hardware mistakes. Every damn ps5 I’ve seen personally sounds like ass. I’ve asked before if people with silent ps5s can show proof and give me hope but no one can. Build quality is crap like always.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

Caio

Member
Jun 27, 2009
744
1,112
1,020
Rome
Cerny is God, we get it.

He is not a God, but at least he is not a clown.
Phil Spencer is dead for me, it's been months swelling his chest, making the wheel like a peacock, we have the most powerful console of this planet, full RDNA2, the only Full RDNA2 Next Gen Console, the right place and best place to play multiplatform games; he even said that after having watched the PS5 Event in Jun, he was feeling even more confident about the XSX significant advantage in Visuals and Performance; and what was shown on the 23rd of July ? what exactly was shown on XSX at that Event which would have suggested a significant advantage in visual and performance compared to what PS5 has shown in Jun ? World premiere World premiere World premiere repeated 55 times, Halo Infinite, and what else ? So the question is always the same, and you may answer if you want, why Phil Spencer said that after having watched the PS5 Event in Jun, he was feeling even more confident about the XSX significant advantage in Visuals and Performance ?

Of course development tools will get better for XBox, but the same apply to PS5, it is not exclusive to Microsoft. Both PS5 and XSX will have better development tools, and performance will get better year after year on both.

I cannot wait to see God of War II Demo, looks like is ready to be shown. This will be the first taste of Next Gen on Consoles.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
686
2,143
340
He is not a God, but at least he is not a clown.
Phil Spencer is dead for me, it's been months swelling his chest, making the wheel like a peacock, we have the most powerful console of this planet, full RDNA2, the only Full RDNA2 Next Gen Console, the right place and best place to play multiplatform games; he even said that after having watched the PS5 Event in Jun, he was feeling even more confident about the XSX significant advantage in Visuals and Performance; and what was shown on the 23rd of July ? what exactly was shown on XSX at that Event which would have suggested a significant advantage in visual and performance compared to what PS5 has shown in Jun ? World premiere World premiere World premiere repeated 55 times, Halo Infinite, and what else ? So the question is always the same, and you may answer if you want, why Phil Spencer said that after having watched the PS5 Event in Jun, he was feeling even more confident about the XSX significant advantage in Visuals and Performance ?

Of course development tools will get better for XBox, but the same apply to PS5, it is not exclusive to Microsoft. Both PS5 and XSX will have better development tools, and performance will get better year after year on both.

I cannot wait to see God of War II Demo, looks like is ready to be shown. This will be the first taste of Next Gen on Consoles.

Exactly. I don't have any personal beef with Phil. He is a gamer, and there is a dearth of gamer executives in the gaming industry, so I kinda like him. But he is also a liar. His three big recent lies are:

- People will see the hardware advantage we bring at launch [Did he not know that their dev kits were sent late, which is what he is now claiming]
- [After PS5's event], I feel very confident in Xbox's launch games. [They literally had one game planned (Halo Infinite), and even he knew that Halo wouldn't make it with no multiplayer, no ray-tracing, and he must have seen the game had problems.]
-
Xbox Series S will just be like Xbox Series X, but at 1440p. [XSS has been underperforming in so many games: frame rates, no ray-tracing, lower graphical settings, etc.]

I really don't understand why people like him, listen to him, and believe him. From a purely academic perspective, I genuinely want someone to explain it to me why they like Phil Spencer and trust him. He had 5 years to prepare for this launch, and he couldn't get one launch game ready, after saying post E3 2019 that they are more excited by the games they haven't shown yet, and people would still trust him and whatever he says.
 
Last edited:

On Demand

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,884
3,304
695
I have to disagree. I know every launch console has issues but Sony never seems to learn from their hardware mistakes. Every damn ps5 I’ve seen personally sounds like ass. I’ve asked before if people with silent ps5s can show proof and give me hope but no one can. Build quality is crap like always.

That’s your personal experience then. There are plenty of PS5’s out there with no problems and still running fine.

Social media exaggerates the amount of problems like always because people are posting about it.
 

geordiemp

Member
Sep 5, 2013
11,831
24,611
1,010
UK
Hard to come up with the conclusion TBH, but generally the higher the frequency the higher the voltage, which raises up in a logarithmic manner, so PS5 having that much higher GPU clock means the voltage is that much higher, resulting in such overall power draw, despite the CU count and 7nm process.

The fan in ps5 uses up to 30 watts, different type uses more power.
 

Hendrick's

Member
Jan 7, 2014
8,479
13,916
995
Exactly. I don't have any personal beef with Phil. He is a gamer, and there is a dearth of gamer executives in the gaming industry, so I kinda like him. But he is also a liar. His three big recent lies are:

- People will see the hardware advantage we bring at launch [Did he not know that their dev kits were sent late, which is what he is now claiming]
- [After PS5's event], I feel very confident in Xbox's launch games. [They literally had one game planned (Halo Infinite), and even he knew that Halo wouldn't make it with no multiplayer, no ray-tracing, and he must have seen the game had problems.]
-
Xbox Series S will just be like Xbox Series X, but at 1440p. [XSS has been underperforming in so many games: frame rates, no ray-tracing, lower graphical settings, etc.]

I really don't understand why people like him, listen to him, and believe him. From a purely academic perspective, I genuinely want someone to explain it to me why they like Phil Spencer and trust him. He had 5 years to prepare for this launch, and he couldn't get one launch game ready, after saying post E3 2019 that they are more excited by the games they haven't shown yet, and people would still trust him and whatever he says.
I never honestly liked Phil Spencer until the last two years. And that has nothing to do with what he has said, but what he has done. As an Xbox fan, I saw a brand on life support brought back to relevance and grow from almost no internal studios to over 20. Certainly the Series launch has not been the best, but it is so early this gen, and for the first time in a long time, there is a ton of stuff to look forward to.
 
Last edited:

Yselacrey00

Member
Nov 20, 2018
412
602
460
It doesn’t matter now.

Even if the Series X surpasses the PS5 in the near future it was vital it came out of the gates winning these head to heads comfortably and it just hasn’t.

Once again, more excuses and more damage control.

By the time MS achieve parity or better more PS5 exclusives will drop which will once again be the best looking games of the gen.

MS fucked up this launch in every way imaginable lol
And people say Phill Spencer is doing a great job. Fucking up a launch like that is not a great job in my book.
 
Last edited: