You could probably have said that easier by saying they don't have the same bottlenecks, and when we consider the pitch made by Cerny for the PS5, every aspect of the design was considering how to remove bottlenecks - which by comparison to the mess of the XsX memory configuration in context of it supposedly being a HSA design - surely the marginal TF difference in your opinion is more than made up by the higher clock and absence of bottlenecks, no?
edit: Can you elaborate on this "and they don't have the same amount of cache."? I assume you are referring to the GPU L2 cache sizes, rather than 52/2 * unit L2 module size vs 36/2 * unit L2 module size?
Cerny focused on bottlenecks in his presentation because he wanted to emphasize the SSD, but just because he said that bottlenecks are a priority doesn't make the PS5 bottlenecks-less console. According to every leak we've had it seems as if Sony had experimented with higher than 500GB/s memory bandwidth for months if not years and back then the PS5 GPU profile was just 9.2TF, now it's over 2200Mhz and they only have 448GB/s, probably because GDDR6 prices spiked really hard. 448GB/s has to handle a GPU more powerful than the 5700XT (which has 448GB/s all to itself), a powerful CPU, 8-9 GB/s of streaming SSD data, an up to 20GB/s audio chip, RT which is a HUGE bandwidth hog and denoising which loves bandwidth just as much. That sounds like a potential bottleneck.
But again, each and every PS5 bottleneck or shortcoming can be canceled by lowering the resolution.
Regarding cache, L0 is inside the CU and XSX has 44% more CUs, hance more L0 cache. In RDNA the L2 is tied to the memory controller so each 32-bit PHY has 512KB. PS5 has 8 PHYs which means 4MB of L2, XSX has 10 PHYs which means 5MB. One of them might have made some custom changes, but that's what we know right now.
Has the number of ROPs been revealed for the PS5 and Xbox Series X yet?
Both had 64 ROPs in Github and it is unlikely to change so late in the process.
And kill their bandwidth in the process? Yeah... They won't do that.
And yes, the difference looks big on paper between these two, but the reason developers are talking about the SSDs of both, is because the difference between them is really not THAT important. Why? Because they are both in comparison to HDDs.
An HDD can guarantee around 50 MB/s of data. If you need to load 10GB of data into RAM from the HDD, it will take 200 seconds, or over 3 minutes.
The XSX will do the same thing in just under 2.1 seconds
The PS5 will do the same thing in just over 1 second.
So for the Xbox you're going from 3 minutes to 2 seconds
For the PS5 you're going from 3 minutes to 1 second.
And you think the difference between them is "big"? You think developers will really care enough to champion the SSD of one over the other? Who is going to complain about a 1 second difference, if before you needed 3 minutes to do the same thing?
Kill the bandwidth? Replacing the 1GB chips with 2GB chips will improve their bandwidth, not reduce it. It will make the whole 20GB run at 560GB/s, no split speeds or weird memory addressing, just a unified 20GB running at 560GB/s. So yes, it's probably MS's only solution to combat Sony's SSD if they want to combat it just like clock speed was Sony's only tool vs MS's CU count.
Regarding the SSD, both getting a huge IO leap in the shape of the SSD is the big win for next-gen. But you can't ignore Sony's ~2x advantage in that area. Will it matter? Time will tell, we haven't had games designed around something like this since the N64.
You mean rasterization combined with RT or is node-based GI something else?
When I say node based GI I mean methods used today in games like Control. It's a rasterized effect using prebaked nodes in order to do GI. I know of two ways of enhancing node based GI. The first is using RT in order to remedy (pun intended!) node based GI artifacts which Control uses in the PC RTX version. The other is using RT in order to keep updating the nodes so the nodes are not baked but updated every few frames. Both methods still use rasterization while utilizing RT in order to make the effect better. It's not RT GI, but it is something worlds better than the current generation and it can look very impressive. But it's not RT GI which is currently the heaviest RT effect I know, much more demending than RT reflections or RT shadows.
Hope you're doing great, mate.
.
