• 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.

|OT| Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Speculation/Analysis/Leaks Thread

Mar 4, 2020
415
1,510
335
The difference will be minimized by the better compression .. but in saying that ....

The internet right now...
lol This is in no way what is going on right now. Swap the SSD and GPU and you would have it right. Everyone is so enamored with the XSX because it’s the “stronger” of the two systems, but now more developers are coming out and showing their excitement for PS5 which has fanboys up in a tizzy.
 
Last edited:

rntongo

Banned
Feb 25, 2020
343
657
275
This is not correct.. DF said they saw Gears 5 benchmarked on both PC and Series X and it was running on par with 2080, not 2080 Super or 2080TI. Granted this was unoptimised code and not built to take advantage of Series X features, but to claim it's outperforming 2080TI is false
It was hitting 60 fps native 4k in what DF saw. The 2080 was hitting 45 fps. But the Series X was actually using a port of the game with 50% more particles than the PC ultra version. Similar tests with ultra settings had the 2080 ti at 58 fps. DF is good because they are cautious, and thats what they were doing, but the unoptimized port of Gears 5 was in fact running much higher than on a 2080 and in fact higher than on a 2080 ti.
 

rntongo

Banned
Feb 25, 2020
343
657
275
Fake news... DF confirmed that early port of Gears 5 is performing near RTX 2080 level... not there yet.
I have to rewrite this because I wasn’t clear. The Series X unoptimized port of gears 5 hit 60fps native 4k on ultra with 50% more particles than on the PC version. DF had the 2080 hitting 45 fps in the pc version. They were being conservative by saying it was performing at the 2080 level. The other thing to note is that the 2080 ti is on record hitting native 4k 58 fps with 50% less particles than the Series X on ultra.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendou and Bo_Hazem
Oct 24, 2017
276
417
290
Has this been discussed?
So basically, the 12tf number is nothing but mere marketing nonsense from Microsoft?
Oh dear, rubbish 🚮

Where's this from?

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mendou

rntongo

Banned
Feb 25, 2020
343
657
275
It’s clear from Cerny’s presentation that the PS5 cannot sustain both max clock speeds for the cpu and gpu. Most games will run at 2GHz glu clock speeds. Those games that do not, will have the cpu transfer power to the gpu such that it can hit 2.23 GHz
 

Lort

Banned
Jul 9, 2017
1,294
1,749
555
lol This is in no way what is going on right now. Swap the SSD and GPU and you would have it right. Everyone is so enamored with the XSX because it’s the “stronger” of the two systems, but now more developers are coming out and showing their excitement for PS5 which has fanboys up in a tizzy.
Everyone IS so enamored by the xbox because it is stronger. Hence the meme ...

The only people that care about the exact SSD speeds are console fanboys from one side of the fence, those who want to repress their hidden desire to buy the Xbox because it’s more powerful.
 

markusfenix75

Member
Sep 17, 2019
190
363
240
lol This is in no way what is going on right now. Swap the SSD and GPU and you would have it right. Everyone is so enamored with the XSX because it’s the “stronger” of the two systems, but now more developers are coming out and showing their excitement for PS5 which has fanboys up in a tizzy.
I like how selective GAF is. If one dev say that SSD won't change open world games dramaticly, they are Xbox fanboys. When Sony devs will say, that it is most revolutionary thing in industry, fanboys here just applaud.

It's nonsense. In a past few days i found out, that fast SSD can bruteforce weaker GPU specs, and that Kraken will be savior of PS5 (despite BCpack) and Tempest audio is most revolutionary thing in history of gaming. Almost like few years ago Microsoft was trying to persuade us about "power of cloud" and how can ESRAM overcome lower speed memory.

And what i like the most is, that Sony fanboys here are comparing PS5 SSD to XsX as if XsX had 5400rpm HDD, which is not true and they are talking about few unbelivable features despite the fact, that XsX has plenty of custom silicon too, they just wasn't focusing on it in their article (see BCpack vs. Kraken). XsX SSD is great on paper and for majority of games, devs will need to design their games with all hardware in mind, so maybe loading times will be only space, where we could potentionaly see any difference. And 1st party Sony dev can do what they want, but that's what? Like 2-3 games per year?

For me, it is nice, that Sony tried, but i think we learned by now, that dev resources are scarce and devs will optimize with the easiest way to save time and cost. We saw that in 360/PS3 era, we saw that in PS4/XOne era. No 3rd party dev will create different game just to use all the power of that mighty SSD. No one.

It's really last gen in reversal. Sony fans in full damage control, trying to find every straw to compensate for weaker specs with fluff. And also downplaying everything that Xbox showed. Yeah, Microsoft have 15 first party studios just to sit down and fiddle with their balls, also Game Pass is worst deal and it will destroy whole industry. Jesus, just wake up. There is nothing wrong with slightly less powerful console. If it will cost less money, everything is as it should be (but i´m not sure if PS5 will be cheaper because of that insane SSD, which is likely expensive as fuck, hence only 825GB capacity).

For example. Cerny came out and said, their SSD is 825GB. Sony fans came out to defend it with shit like "It's capacity of space that you can use" and "Cerny said it like that because he is IT guy," despite the fact, that never ever anybody from Microsoft/Sony talked about console space with available storage. Everybody is talking about maximum storage. Not even Cerny last gen. But try to say it here and few zealots will eat you alive

Most funny thing is, that if Sony came out with 13,3TFLOPS or something like that, we wouldn't have last 200 pages of "mighty SSD will put Xbox to shame" because PS fans would just talk about "my dream console is more powerful and therefore is better"
 
Last edited:

Samsomite

Member
Oct 24, 2018
707
1,682
375
I like how selective GAF is. If one dev say that SSD won't change open world games dramaticly, they are Xbox fanboys. When Sony devs will say, that it is most revolutionary thing in industry, fanboys here just applaud.

It's nonsense. In a past few days i found out, that fast SSD can bruteforce weaker GPU specs, and that Kraken will be savior of PS5 (despite BCpack) and Tempest audio is most revolutionary thing in history of gaming. Almost like few years ago Microsoft was trying to persuade us about "power of cloud" and how can ESRAM overcome lower speed memory.

And what i like the most is, that Sony fanboys here are comparing PS5 SSD to XsX as if XsX had 5400rpm HDD, which is not true and they are talking about few unbelivable features despite the fact, that XsX has plenty of custom silicon too, they just wasn't focusing on it in their article (see BCpack vs. Kraken). XsX SSD is great on paper and for majority of games, devs will need to design their games with all hardware in mind, so maybe loading times will be only space, where we could potentionaly see any difference. And 1st party Sony dev can do what they want, but that's what? Like 2-3 games per year?

For me, it is nice, that Sony tried, but i think we learned by now, that dev resources are scarce and devs will optimize with the easiest way to save time and cost. We saw that in 360/PS3 era, we saw that in PS4/XOne era. No 3rd party dev will create different game just to use all the power of that mighty SSD. No one.

It's really last gen in reversal. Sony fans in full damage control, trying to find every straw to compensate for weaker specs with fluff. And also downplaying everything that Xbox showed. Yeah, Microsoft have 15 first party studios just to sit down and fiddle with their balls, also Game Pass is worst deal and it will destroy whole industry. Jesus, just wake up. There is nothing wrong with slightly less powerful console. If it will cost less money, everything is as it should be (but i´m not sure if PS5 will be cheaper because of that insane SSD, which is likely expensive as fuck, hence only 825GB capacity).

For example. Cerny came out and said, their SSD is 825GB. Sony fans came out to defend it with shit like "It's capacity of space that you can use" and "Cerny said it like that because he is IT guy," despite the fact, that never ever anybody from Microsoft/Sony talked about console space with available storage. Everybody is talking about maximum storage. Not even Cerny last gen. But try to say it here and few zealots will eat you alive

Most funny thing is, that if Sony came out with 13,3TFLOPS or something like that, we wouldn't have last 200 pages of "mighty SSD will put Xbox to shame" because PS fans would just talk about "my dream console is more powerful and therefore is better"
Hey, don't you come here and combobreak the SSD/3D audio circle jerk from the usual suspects that has been going on for days now. :messenger_winking:
 

DForce

Member
Nov 23, 2017
2,675
3,768
380
Everyone IS so enamored by the xbox because it is stronger. Hence the meme ...

The only people that care about the exact SSD speeds are console fanboys from one side of the fence, those who want to repress their hidden desire to buy the Xbox because it’s more powerful.
Only a small minority of gamers care about the specs.

This is what happened a few years ago. People swore up and down that people were going to buy an Xbox One X because it was a more powerful console.


Turns out, the pro outsold it.
 

Lort

Banned
Jul 9, 2017
1,294
1,749
555
Only a small minority of gamers care about the specs.

This is what happened a few years ago. People swore up and down that people were going to buy an Xbox One X because it was a more powerful console.


Turns out, the pro outsold it.
Pls post sales data of pro vs x b x ... as far as I know the only figures released where US soon after launch .. and x b x easily outsold ps4 pro.

Which must be very disappointing considering the ps4 pro was cheaper and they had twice install base.
 

it_wasn't_me

Banned
May 22, 2017
1,991
3,120
395
I like how selective GAF is. If one dev say that SSD won't change open world games dramaticly, they are Xbox fanboys. When Sony devs will say, that it is most revolutionary thing in industry, fanboys here just applaud.

It's nonsense. In a past few days i found out, that fast SSD can bruteforce weaker GPU specs, and that Kraken will be savior of PS5 (despite BCpack) and Tempest audio is most revolutionary thing in history of gaming. Almost like few years ago Microsoft was trying to persuade us about "power of cloud" and how can ESRAM overcome lower speed memory.

And what i like the most is, that Sony fanboys here are comparing PS5 SSD to XsX as if XsX had 5400rpm HDD, which is not true and they are talking about few unbelivable features despite the fact, that XsX has plenty of custom silicon too, they just wasn't focusing on it in their article (see BCpack vs. Kraken). XsX SSD is great on paper and for majority of games, devs will need to design their games with all hardware in mind, so maybe loading times will be only space, where we could potentionaly see any difference. And 1st party Sony dev can do what they want, but that's what? Like 2-3 games per year?

For me, it is nice, that Sony tried, but i think we learned by now, that dev resources are scarce and devs will optimize with the easiest way to save time and cost. We saw that in 360/PS3 era, we saw that in PS4/XOne era. No 3rd party dev will create different game just to use all the power of that mighty SSD. No one.

It's really last gen in reversal. Sony fans in full damage control, trying to find every straw to compensate for weaker specs with fluff. And also downplaying everything that Xbox showed. Yeah, Microsoft have 15 first party studios just to sit down and fiddle with their balls, also Game Pass is worst deal and it will destroy whole industry. Jesus, just wake up. There is nothing wrong with slightly less powerful console. If it will cost less money, everything is as it should be (but i´m not sure if PS5 will be cheaper because of that insane SSD, which is likely expensive as fuck, hence only 825GB capacity).

For example. Cerny came out and said, their SSD is 825GB. Sony fans came out to defend it with shit like "It's capacity of space that you can use" and "Cerny said it like that because he is IT guy," despite the fact, that never ever anybody from Microsoft/Sony talked about console space with available storage. Everybody is talking about maximum storage. Not even Cerny last gen. But try to say it here and few zealots will eat you alive

Most funny thing is, that if Sony came out with 13,3TFLOPS or something like that, we wouldn't have last 200 pages of "mighty SSD will put Xbox to shame" because PS fans would just talk about "my dream console is more powerful and therefore is better"
MisterXmedia, Timdog, blue nugroho, Klob, colteastwood and other Phil Spencer nut hugger salutes you.
 

Lort

Banned
Jul 9, 2017
1,294
1,749
555
It won't because numbers are saying otherwise.
As I said the numbers say the xSex will outperform the ps5 .. in graphics, physics/AI and texture quality.

I never said that the SSD has higher specs .. just thatthe difference will be minimal ...and that nobody cares about that compared to graphics and physics / AI .
 

it_wasn't_me

Banned
May 22, 2017
1,991
3,120
395
Pls post sales data of pro vs x b x ... as far as I know the only figures released where US soon after launch .. and x b x easily outsold ps4 pro.

Which must be very disappointing considering the ps4 pro was cheaper and they had twice install base.
There is no twice the install base in US. Btw. it is really simple that Pro outsold X1X globally in every way.
 
Last edited:

DForce

Member
Nov 23, 2017
2,675
3,768
380
I like how selective GAF is. If one dev say that SSD won't change open world games dramaticly, they are Xbox fanboys. When Sony devs will say, that it is most revolutionary thing in industry, fanboys here just applaud.

You mean this guy?


This is not a developer, but he even said they took what he said out of context. He believes it won't have a drastically big impact on open world games, but instead other type of games.

The specs alone in comparison between both consoles are not huge. If Sony announces more RNDA 2 features such as VRS, people are still going to say the Xbox Series S is way more powerful.

But somehow, having a much faster SSD will do nothing for the console but 1-2 seconds of faster load times.

People tried to downplay RDNA 2 on PS5
Are now downplaying the frequency on the PS5 by saying it's only 9.2TF most of the time.

People are trying their best to make the PS5 look as bad as possible.
 

it_wasn't_me

Banned
May 22, 2017
1,991
3,120
395
If it ever did Sony would be saying so.. they have said nothing.

The only released figures show xbox one x outselling ps4 pro. .. wait didn’t I just say that ...do you really need me to google it for you?
Show it. You said US. But US isn't world

I never said that the SSD has higher specs .. just thatthe difference will be minimal ...and that nobody cares about that compared to graphics and physics / AI .
You said that you want to show how PS5 SSD isn't faster. LOL
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
415
1,510
335
Everyone IS so enamored by the xbox because it is stronger. Hence the meme ...

The only people that care about the exact SSD speeds are console fanboys from one side of the fence, those who want to repress their hidden desire to buy the Xbox because it’s more powerful.
I like how selective GAF is. If one dev say that SSD won't change open world games dramaticly, they are Xbox fanboys. When Sony devs will say, that it is most revolutionary thing in industry, fanboys here just applaud.

It's nonsense. In a past few days i found out, that fast SSD can bruteforce weaker GPU specs, and that Kraken will be savior of PS5 (despite BCpack) and Tempest audio is most revolutionary thing in history of gaming. Almost like few years ago Microsoft was trying to persuade us about "power of cloud" and how can ESRAM overcome lower speed memory.

And what i like the most is, that Sony fanboys here are comparing PS5 SSD to XsX as if XsX had 5400rpm HDD, which is not true and they are talking about few unbelivable features despite the fact, that XsX has plenty of custom silicon too, they just wasn't focusing on it in their article (see BCpack vs. Kraken). XsX SSD is great on paper and for majority of games, devs will need to design their games with all hardware in mind, so maybe loading times will be only space, where we could potentionaly see any difference. And 1st party Sony dev can do what they want, but that's what? Like 2-3 games per year?

For me, it is nice, that Sony tried, but i think we learned by now, that dev resources are scarce and devs will optimize with the easiest way to save time and cost. We saw that in 360/PS3 era, we saw that in PS4/XOne era. No 3rd party dev will create different game just to use all the power of that mighty SSD. No one.

It's really last gen in reversal. Sony fans in full damage control, trying to find every straw to compensate for weaker specs with fluff. And also downplaying everything that Xbox showed. Yeah, Microsoft have 15 first party studios just to sit down and fiddle with their balls, also Game Pass is worst deal and it will destroy whole industry. Jesus, just wake up. There is nothing wrong with slightly less powerful console. If it will cost less money, everything is as it should be (but i´m not sure if PS5 will be cheaper because of that insane SSD, which is likely expensive as fuck, hence only 825GB capacity).

For example. Cerny came out and said, their SSD is 825GB. Sony fans came out to defend it with shit like "It's capacity of space that you can use" and "Cerny said it like that because he is IT guy," despite the fact, that never ever anybody from Microsoft/Sony talked about console space with available storage. Everybody is talking about maximum storage. Not even Cerny last gen. But try to say it here and few zealots will eat you alive

Most funny thing is, that if Sony came out with 13,3TFLOPS or something like that, we wouldn't have last 200 pages of "mighty SSD will put Xbox to shame" because PS fans would just talk about "my dream console is more powerful and therefore is better"
Hey, don't you come here and combobreak the SSD/3D audio circle jerk from the usual suspects that has been going on for days now. :messenger_winking:
lol Hoo boy. You Xbox fans are something else man. Didn’t think I would trigger people like that with a throwaway comment. 😂😂😂
 

lepermessiah

Member
Mar 2, 2020
220
752
255
Replace the top pic with Ali and you are close. Sure Bruce is faster but he will still lose because Ali is not exactly slow and hits a lot harder.
Hits harder but then Bruce lands a more efficient 5.5 GB/s KICK and gains the edge...




See here:

"Fewer CUs at higher clock rates are better than more CUs at lower clock rates in terms of performance. Because of several factors, the performance never scales 100% linearly with more CUs, but with the frequenz (as in Ghz) if there are no other bottlenecks.
E.g. The Xbox Series X needs more threads to use the machine and not every work instruction is completely independent and scales perfectly.

Then there are factors outside of the CUs, such as the *work allocator* for the CUs, that was a problem especially for GCN and will probably be a bit for RDNA as well. There is a shader processor input block, that initializes registers and tasks for a shader array, but it can only supply a compute unit every four cycles.

The more CUs per SPI exist, the more this HW block limits, because it does not manage to supply all CUs in time and there are more and more waiting cycles.

Based on the maximum clock difference of 22.2%, the PS5 wins simply because it has the same number of special computing units. The front and back end seem to be the same, i.e. 4 rasterizers, 4 prim units and 64 ROPs can be found in both. This means that, in the best case, the PS5 has a 22% higher pixel fill rate and can calculate 22% faster triangles on the part of the fixed function HW.

Another factor is e.g. Cache ratios for the L1 and L2 $ compared to the compute units.
There is 128KB L1 $ per shader array, both probably have four shader arrays, with the XSX then 13 CUs 128KB share, with the PS5 only 9 (or if only scaled via WGPs, two times 8 and two times 10 ). The same applies to the L2 $, which has to supply relatively fewer mouths. (not sure what what the OG meant to say, maybe a google trans. error)
All of this changes the cache-hit-rate in favor of the PS5.

Overall, however, it depends on how much the configuration of the PS5 brings advantages compared to the XSX. Especially if the PS5 "only" clocks with 2.1 or 2 GHz at high load, then 22.2% -> 15.1% or only 9.6% clock advantage, that could hardly or even in practice no longer play a role, at least as far as the fixed-function hardware is concerned, and of course the whole GPU performance scales down.

As it currently looks, there will be one intersection engine per TMU, i.e. four per CU.
36 x 4 = 144 on the PS5 and 52 x 4 = 208 on the XSX.

Similar to the other things, this scales with the beat, so:

PS5 -> 144 x 2.23 = 321.12 billion intersection calculations per second (in the best case, with the maximum clock).
XSX -> 208 x 1,825 = 379.6 billion intersection calculations per second (+ 18.2% compared to the PS5)

A certain bonus for the PS5 arises from the relatively higher L1 / L2 $ capacity, which will probably help with ray tracing. But without benchmarks you will not be able to specify exactly and since the clock of the PS5 can still go down, more caution must be taken about the practical difference of the machines."

posted by Locuza, 3D forum.com
 
Last edited:

markusfenix75

Member
Sep 17, 2019
190
363
240
MisterXmedia, Timdog, blue nugroho, Klob, colteastwood and other Phil Spencer nut hugger salutes you.
Well. Every console have their fans, who take it way too seriously :). I don't care who salutes me, nor that i care, what zealots here think of me

You mean this guy?


This is not a developer, but he even said they took what he said out of context. He believes it won't have a drastically big impact on open world games, but instead other type of games.

The specs alone in comparison between both consoles are not huge. If Sony announces more RNDA 2 features such as VRS, people are still going to say the Xbox Series S is way more powerful.

But somehow, having a much faster SSD will do nothing for the console but 1-2 seconds of faster load times.

People tried to downplay RDNA 2 on PS5
Are now downplaying the frequency on the PS5 by saying it's only 9.2TF most of the time.

People are trying their best to make the PS5 look as bad as possible.
Well, It's still be more powerful, right? I wouldn't say "way more" just "more"

Also I'm not saying that faster SSD has nothing to do with consoles. I'm just saying, that devs will most likely take XsX SSD specs as a baseline for console port in terms of game design and then port it to PS5. Or you really think, that Rockstar for example will design GTA VI in a way, that wasn't compatible with XsX hardware? If you like it or not, you can't just ignore Xbox platform if you are 3rd party dev.

But if you think that PS5 multiplats will be different games because that fast SSD, i'm not gonna persuade you. You will find out yourself

And in case of 9.2TF. I'm not saying PS5 will be 9,2TF. But I mean Cerny didn't help it either. Why even have variable frequencies in console? If you are sure, your console can handle 2,23GHz GPU and 3,5GHz CPU clocks constantly within power load, why have the ability to downclock them? If you are not honest it will create questions. If you are saying stuff like "it will downclock a little bit" it will always create question. Why didn't Cerny said minimum frequencies for GPU and CPU? Why not clarify that whole issue? Why it is good to be so secretive? We will see, if there is reason to be that secretive when consoles will came out.
 

Marlenus

Member
Jul 29, 2013
1,338
293
495
UK
Hits harder but then Bruce lands a more efficient 5.5 GB/s KICK and gains the edge...




See here:

"Fewer CUs at higher clock rates are better than more CUs at lower clock rates in terms of performance. Because of several factors, the performance never scales 100% linearly with more CUs, but with the frequenz (as in Ghz) if there are no other bottlenecks.
E.g. The Xbox Series X needs more threads to use the machine and not every work instruction is completely independent and scales perfectly.

Then there are factors outside of the CUs, such as the *work allocator* for the CUs, that was a problem especially for GCN and will probably be a bit for RDNA as well. There is a shader processor input block, that initializes registers and tasks for a shader array, but it can only supply a compute unit every four cycles.

The more CUs per SPI exist, the more this HW block limits, because it does not manage to supply all CUs in time and there are more and more waiting cycles.

Based on the maximum clock difference of 22.2%, the PS5 wins simply because it has the same number of special computing units. The front and back end seem to be the same, i.e. 4 rasterizers, 4 prim units and 64 ROPs can be found in both. This means that, in the best case, the PS5 has a 22% higher pixel fill rate and can calculate 22% faster triangles on the part of the fixed function HW.

Another factor is e.g. Cache ratios for the L1 and L2 $ compared to the compute units.
There is 128KB L1 $ per shader array, both probably have four shader arrays, with the XSX then 13 CUs 128KB share, with the PS5 only 9 (or if only scaled via WGPs, two times 8 and two times 10 ). The same applies to the L2 $, which has to supply relatively fewer mouths. (not sure what what the OG meant to say, maybe a google trans. error)
All of this changes the cache-hit-rate in favor of the PS5.

Overall, however, it depends on how much the configuration of the PS5 brings advantages compared to the XSX. Especially if the PS5 "only" clocks with 2.1 or 2 GHz at high load, then 22.2% -> 15.1% or only 9.6% clock advantage, that could hardly or even in practice no longer play a role, at least as far as the fixed-function hardware is concerned, and of course the whole GPU performance scales down.

As it currently looks, there will be one intersection engine per TMU, i.e. four per CU.
36 x 4 = 144 on the PS5 and 52 x 4 = 208 on the XSX.

Similar to the other things, this scales with the beat, so:

PS5 -> 144 x 2.23 = 321.12 billion intersection calculations per second (in the best case, with the maximum clock).
XSX -> 208 x 1,825 = 379.6 billion intersection calculations per second (+ 18.2% compared to the PS5)

A certain bonus for the PS5 arises from the relatively higher L1 / L2 $ capacity, which will probably help with ray tracing. But without benchmarks you will not be able to specify exactly and since the clock of the PS5 can still go down, more caution must be taken about the practical difference of the machines."

posted by Locuza, 3D forum.com
Solo your saying the 2080S can beat a 2080Ti because it runs at a higher frequency so can keep its shaders occupied. Maybe in fantasy land but not in reality.
 

lepermessiah

Member
Mar 2, 2020
220
752
255
Solo your saying the 2080S can beat a 2080Ti because it runs at a higher frequency so can keep its shaders occupied. Maybe in fantasy land but not in reality.
Nope, they're Nvidia, we're still wating to see benchmarks for these RDNA 2 architectures, also factoring the custom silicon as well. Even still, the TI doesn't seem to blow the S that much out the water to justify the upgrade, the S is a solid card.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Shio

Member
Jan 28, 2020
84
160
175
It’s clear from Cerny’s presentation that the PS5 cannot sustain both max clock speeds for the cpu and gpu. Most games will run at 2GHz glu clock speeds. Those games that do not, will have the cpu transfer power to the gpu such that it can hit 2.23 GHz
You start by saying it was clear but then conitnue to make things up. Cerny stated frequency would reeuce couple percent max only but here you are reducing more than 10 percent, where is this figure from?
 

Bo_Hazem

Member
Feb 10, 2020
2,449
10,294
435
34
Salalah, Oman
Now try it with a player who hasn't got a big case of the slow aim, slow brain.
You know that assets load in phases, you don't jump from nothing to ultra quality 4K assets in one go. It'll keep up with the phase technique: Low>medium>high quality, that can translate to 300MB>1GB>4GB. Guess what? You can do up to 4GB in 0.2sec.

By the way, you look like that Master Race iconic photo but in real life :messenger_winking_tongue: (y)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lepermessiah

it_wasn't_me

Banned
May 22, 2017
1,991
3,120
395
Well. Every console have their fans, who take it way too seriously :). I don't care who salutes me, nor that i care, what zealots here think of me


Well, It's still be more powerful, right? I wouldn't say "way more" just "more"

Also I'm not saying that faster SSD has nothing to do with consoles. I'm just saying, that devs will most likely take XsX SSD specs as a baseline for console port in terms of game design and then port it to PS5. Or you really think, that Rockstar for example will design GTA VI in a way, that wasn't compatible with XsX hardware? If you like it or not, you can't just ignore Xbox platform if you are 3rd party dev.

But if you think that PS5 multiplats will be different games because that fast SSD, i'm not gonna persuade you. You will find out yourself

And in case of 9.2TF. I'm not saying PS5 will be 9,2TF. But I mean Cerny didn't help it either. Why even have variable frequencies in console? If you are sure, your console can handle 2,23GHz GPU and 3,5GHz CPU clocks constantly within power load, why have the ability to downclock them? If you are not honest it will create questions. If you are saying stuff like "it will downclock a little bit" it will always create question. Why didn't Cerny said minimum frequencies for GPU and CPU? Why not clarify that whole issue? Why it is good to be so secretive? We will see, if there is reason to be that secretive when consoles will came out.
Nowhere near too seriously like these guys.

Ask Nvidia and Amd which are developing GPUs with variable clocks for years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Lort

Banned
Jul 9, 2017
1,294
1,749
555
Ask Nvidia and Amd which are developing GPUs with variable clocks for years.
Because gpu and cpu throttling is such an awesome thing that people absolutely love!

The whole point of throttling is to put a higher performance on the box than it can actually do. It’s marketing bs .. which is exactly why Sony is doing it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: draliko

markusfenix75

Member
Sep 17, 2019
190
363
240
Nowhere near too seriously like these guys.

Ask Nvidia and Amd which are developing GPUs with variable clocks for years.
Are you sure?

After last week here? Mental gymnastic of some fanboys here is worth a book. My example of that 825GB storage of PS5 is prime example.

And about that clock. Are we seriously want to compare PC and consoles? Because last time I heard, XsX was just "strong PC with no interesting solutions" and PS5 was "big leap in console gaming." Again. If Sony could afford stable clocks, PS5 would have them. It is better for devs to create a game, when you know which resources you will have. And it was staple of console gaming for years.

I wonder why Cerny didn't specify, what was minimal clockspeed we can expect from PS5 and why he gave only maximum. Geez, I wonder why. (But i'm sure some of you will spin even this to positive)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ZywyPL