Power = Heat created. Again, as I said, the console will be designed to perform at it's stated frequencies in a room at 40+ degrees. It does this by limiting it's overall power draw to prevent it creating more heat than it can dissipate in that ambient temperature. This is a simple bit of overhead that all console manufacturers have to take into account unless they want their console to perform great in Norway but like trash in Australia.
Please let's not play to be insider you don't have idea of the operating temperature range of PS5.
Player actions aren't a known variable however. Unless it is an entirely scripted sequence, there will be unknowable variables.
Games aren't a CGI movie. The dynamics of players, A.I and physics aren't predictable.
Not exactly, when you are making a test of any software specially a game you test different scenarios or workloads, in a game for example with help
of things like a profiler you got an idea of this kind of things and even then you left a little threshold in case your miss some scenario, is always perfect ? not,
is not but is the way we work today so its not weird.
It's a negative because it is in direct comparison to a system that is not only more powerful by doesn't have that variance in performance.
I never heard a dev ask to its boss/manager for the clock or the flop of a CPU or GPU, the reason is simple you cannot get an idea of the performance
from a piece of silicon with that data. So sorry but doesn't works like this, not because a company like Sony and Xbox go a tell you this are flops of my box
then you can just said without fear or be question than A system is Y percent better.
Maybe you tell me this difference could be a good approximation but the thing, we don't have a idea a how good is RDNA 2 (how good scale in CU and Clock)
and even less a how the customizations of each company will affect the performance of each chip.
Again, as I've said, if a developer wants a smooth game experience, they will need to leave more performance on the table, or spend more time optimising than they otherwise would need to.
You always do that, this one of the reason of why use the term flops is ridiculous coming from someone who pretend to know something.
I can understand this point of view from a normal user but if your actually have knowledge of how is make a big piece of software you know that you
always needs to decide when you can run some process and continue within the parameters than you need in time (in the case of a game the time per frame).
If we believe what Cerny says things like cache scrubber will help to reach in a easier way a high percentage of SOL on your GPU.
This companies doesn't spend dozens or even hundred millions of dollars in create a console just for you to reduce that work is just a number of a theoric performance
from a part of the GPU.
It's a sub optimal approach compared to your competition that is already more powerful and doesn't need to account for the variance.
Its competitor has more theoric performance in one part of the GPU but could be harder or not to reach that performance in a system
without all this extra customizations we know Sony introduce.
This is hilarious coming from the guy who tried to add the 14%* smartshift performance boost twice in an ass backwards way.
The hilarious thing is you had a ban in the reply and soon is lifted you prove was necessary in your case, is good to debate idea what is dumb is
use phrases where you affirm without a doubt in things that surely for obvious reason you do not know and then complain when others
do the same thing.
