Support NeoGAF

[Fafalada]

And there's no realistic situation in which it won't be better than a single 256-bit bus.

That's a moot point for XSX - extra bandwidth isn't some sort of an 'add-on', it needs to be there to facilitate the faster GPU, regardless of the tradeoffs associated with it.

For example, IIRC Cell's read from GPU DDR3 was incredibly, unbelievably slow, at something like 1/1000 of percent of actual memory pool bandwidth.

Yea because it used debug-channel for CPU to read from GPU ram. It was an architectural flaw, but likely one that had more to do with timescale of RSX integration than much else. RSX still had full 25GB/s access to both memories with only minor differences in access latency(and again, that doubled possible bandwidth available to the chip).

I can't think of any split memory pool console that would be as fast or handle being treated as one single pool as well as this.

Wii, GC, PSP to name a few more, if you don't want to count PS3 because CPU/GPU didn't get the same treatment.
Ultimately we haven't had to work with per-device split-address ranges since PS2 (or NDS, if we count handhelds).

 

[onQ123]

PS5 might have 128 ROPs for 2nd screen VR

 

[Rolling_Start]

(IMHO)320bit still isn’t ideal unless you have data packets that conveniently align that way without padding – because fragmentation and padding kill bandwidth efficiency. I would love for Xbox to do an early tech analysis of their RT Minecraft to let us see just how well their hardware choices align to the early code for the demos they showed.

Although you say the XsX handles these situations gracefully, I would wonder how we can tell at this stage. What games will try to achieve on XsX, and PS5 is yet to be defined and looking at what has been described from the split memory access, isochronous traffic is not an insignificant traffic type to handle under high BW contention without the priority access of the isochronous traffic impeding utilisation. From a data comms perspective it isn't hard to envisage controller lag, frame-pacing and stable frame-rates being occasional casualties of the bandwidth contention conundrum.

I don't see 320 bit as being any more or less ideal that any other bus width. Graphics cards have worked with bus multiples of 64 since the dawn of time. And with differing memory densities across that bus too.

I say that XSX handles things more gracefully than split pools, because there is a known, predictable and really quite gentle gradation between accesses with the vast majority of accesses being a full speed.

I don't know how you get to "controller lag" and "frame-pacing" issues given that the memory controller will be making scheduling decisions across it's five 64-bit channels (or perhaps 5 x 2 x 32-bit channels) millions of times a second (at a minimum).

 

[Redlight]

Xbox fans: “XSX is the most powerful next gen console on paper!”

Everyone else: “Well yes, but the things that the PS5 are doing may possibly give it the better performance in real world application. Let’s just wait for more info and games.”

Xbox fans: “ XSX IS THE MOST POWERFUL. YOU SONY PONIES ARE JUST BUTTHURT. AN SSD CAN’T MAKE UP COMPUTE POWER! EVERYTHING WILL LOOK AND RUN BETTER ON XSX!”

And people wonder why discussion has slowed down in these threads. People are tired of getting shouted down by manchildren.

I haven't seen any shouting, other than the imaginary example in your reply. This is simply about the information we have to hand, however inconvenient it seems to be for some people.

There's quite an effort in this thread to muddy the waters and create a sense that the PS5 is the most capable console - even when the official technical specs show the Series X to be more powerful overall. It's understandable, to a degree, as people want to justify purchasing decisions that they've already made. The PS5 will be a fine system with great games but we shouldn't lose sight of the established facts.

As the most powerful next-gen console, the Series X is likely to be the best place to play third-party games.

 

[Rolling_Start]

That's a moot point for XSX - extra bandwidth isn't some sort of an 'add-on', it needs to be there to facilitate the faster GPU, regardless of the tradeoffs associated with it.

Yes, and I think it will be there or else their years of profiling and engineering will have been something of a fuckup. Which given the people involved I don't expect.

Yea because it used debug-channel for CPU to read from GPU ram. It was an architectural flaw, but likely one that had more to do with timescale of RSX integration than much else. RSX still had full 25GB/s access to both memories with only minor differences in access latency(and again, that doubled possible bandwidth available to the chip).

I can only go off Wikipedia for this, but it looks like Cell also had less than a quarter rate write to GDDR3.

Wii, GC, PSP to name a few more, if you don't want to count PS3 because CPU/GPU didn't get the same treatment.
Ultimately we haven't had to work with per-device split-address ranges since PS2 (or NDS, if we count handhelds).

I know very little about the PSP (regretfully, looking back it was a pretty cool device) but both the Wii and GC had much larger differences in bandwidth between memory pools.

My memory is far from comprehensive or reliable, but I can't think of a split memory pool system that's better placed to service a console flexibly than the XSX's admittedly awkward, but fast, memory arrangement.

 

[Deeper Underground]

I haven't seen any shouting, other than the imaginary example in your reply. This is simply about the information we have to hand, however inconvenient it seems to be for some people.

There's quite an effort in this thread to muddy the waters and create a sense that the PS5 is the most capable console - even when the official technical specs show the Series X to be more powerful overall. It's understandable, to a degree, as people want to justify purchasing decisions that they've already made. The PS5 will be a fine system with great games but we shouldn't lose sight of the established facts.

As the most powerful next-gen console, the Series X is likely to be the best place to play third-party games.

Thank you for ironically proving my comment correct.

 

[rnlval]

Physics that alters gameplay can only be offloaded to the GPU if the results of the simulation get returned periodically to the game logic same with AI) – ie incur copying speeds from the 10GB -> 6GB at 336GB/s (AFAIK) a read to the CPU cache, followed by a write to the 6GB which isn't required on the PS5. Forward-only simulations that run on the GPU merely to improve the visuals wouldn’t incur such a cost, obviously. A standard wave simulation to render an ocean is likely done in this way. By comparison a soldier stood on a beach with a BFG shooting voids through those waves to capsize inbound vessels next to those voids – as the adjacent water collapsed into the voids – would require compute in the GPU and CPU to handle the physics/collision/AI and game logic – all incurring bi-directional data copies on a system that semantically has discrete memory pools for the CPU and GPU.

Wrong, there's a two-way fusion link between the CPU and GPU.

Also from https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-inside-xbox-series-x-full-specs

"Memory performance is asymmetrical - it's not something we could have done with the PC," explains Andrew Goossen "10 gigabytes of physical memory [runs at] 560GB/s. We call this GPU optimal memory. Six gigabytes [runs at] 336GB/s. We call this standard memory. GPU optimal and standard offer identical performance for CPU audio and file IO. The only hardware component that sees a difference in the GPU." '

CPU has access to both "GPU optimal" and "standard" memory pools.

Your understanding with XSX is WRONG when you claim "copying speeds from the 10GB -> 6GB " is a requirement for CPU reading from GPU results.

 

[Fake]

I haven't seen any shouting, other than the imaginary example in your reply. This is simply about the information we have to hand, however inconvenient it seems to be for some people.

There's quite an effort in this thread to muddy the waters and create a sense that the PS5 is the most capable console - even when the official technical specs show the Series X to be more powerful overall. It's understandable, to a degree, as people want to justify purchasing decisions that they've already made. The PS5 will be a fine system with great games but we shouldn't lose sight of the established facts.

As the most powerful next-gen console, the Series X is likely to be the best place to play third-party games.

You must be blind or a neo member. Go to the ban page.

 

[Rolling_Start]

(IMHO)320bit still isn’t ideal unless you have data packets that conveniently align that way without padding – because fragmentation and padding kill bandwidth efficiency. I would love for Xbox to do an early tech analysis of their RT Minecraft to let us see just how well their hardware choices align to the early code for the demos they showed.

320-bit worked out a treat for Nvidia with probably their most kickass and long lasting card.

With a suitably designed memory controller you'll always have a mix of 32, 64, 128, and 256 bit accesses to schedule (or 2 x 16, or 4 x 8, or 8 x 4). And wider means more scheduling opportunities.

Although you say the XsX handles these situations gracefully, I would wonder how we can tell at this stage. What games will try to achieve on XsX, and PS5 is yet to be defined and looking at what has been described from the split memory access, isochronous traffic is not an insignificant traffic type to handle under high BW contention without the priority access of the isochronous traffic impeding utilisation. From a data comms perspective it isn't hard to envisage controller lag, frame-pacing and stable frame-rates being occasional casualties of the bandwidth contention conundrum.

If you're thinking that XSX memory bus is going to cause unstable frame rates or controller lag, chances are you shouldn't be talking about "isochronous traffic".

 

[DeeDogg_]

Rumor that gta6 gonna be announced by months end. Don’t read to much info it but...yea

 

[Imtjnotu]

Rumor that gta6 gonna be announced by months end. Don’t read to much info it but...yea

so by Tuesday we will have a gta announcement

 

[Rusco Da Vino]

There's quite an effort in this thread to muddy the waters and create a sense that the PS5 is the most capable console - even when the official technical specs show the Series X to be more powerful overall. It's understandable, to a degree, as people want to justify purchasing decisions that they've already made. The PS5 will be a fine system with great games but we shouldn't lose sight of the established facts.

As the most powerful next-gen console, the Series X is likely to be the best place to play third-party games.

Listen it again

 

[DeeDogg_]

so by Tuesday we will have a gta announcement

That’s what folks are saying on the gta forums. Apparently the guy implying it is a well known leaker

 

[Imtjnotu]

That’s what folks are saying on the gta forums. Apparently the guy implying it is a well known leaker

 

[onQ123]

I haven't seen any shouting, other than the imaginary example in your reply. This is simply about the information we have to hand, however inconvenient it seems to be for some people.

There's quite an effort in this thread to muddy the waters and create a sense that the PS5 is the most capable console - even when the official technical specs show the Series X to be more powerful overall. It's understandable, to a degree, as people want to justify purchasing decisions that they've already made. The PS5 will be a fine system with great games but we shouldn't lose sight of the established facts.

As the most powerful next-gen console, the Series X is likely to be the best place to play third-party games.

But it don't show Xbox SX to be the most powerful over all when PS5 has the rendering advantage from having a higher clock rate.

 

[Neo Blaster]

You must be blind or a neo member. Go to the ban page.

By the way these neo accounts are going, BCPack is going to make XSX SSD faster than PS5's.

 

[Imtjnotu]

By the way these neo accounts are going, BCPack is going to make XSX SSD faster than PS5's.

Wait till the fp16 beast 25Tflops blows the shitty 10tf out the water

 

[splattered]

I'm wondering why the hell Sony hasn't shown off the console still... wtf are they waiting on?

What if they're still having thermal issues and just advertised smartshift boost mode *in hopes* that they could get cooling sorted out but end up having to step it back and run the machine at slower clocks?

I'd hope they are working on a form factor similar to XsX to allow for higher clocks as advertised.

 

[saintjules]

Rumor that gta6 gonna be announced by months end. Don’t read to much info it but...yea

Redirect Notice

 

[DavidMarques]

Based on all the data we have on the XSX and PS5 I think it's fair to say, Sony wants to have an affordable console again.

First of all, a small retrospective

5th generation of consoles
N64(Most powerful console) -> 34 Million units sold.

PS1(Most affordable console) -> 103 Million units sold.

6th Generation Consoles

Xbox/GameCube (Most Powerful Consoles) -> approximately 50 Million units sold combined.

PS2(Most affordable console) -> 150 Million units sold.


7th Generation Consoles

During Generation 7 Sony made the big mistake of releasing a more expensive console that in practice was inferior to the direct competitor, which gave the X360 at least 5 years of large advantage over the PS3, which could only recover after a series of price reductions and grotesque mistakes made by Microsoft. In the end, it is reasonable to say that there was a technical tie in Generation 7
(Ignoring Wii)


8th Generation of consoles.

Sony launches the most powerful and affordable console, along with highly regarded exclusive titles, which inevitably gave it an absurd advantage. With the launch of XOX, it became even more evident that the price combined with the games is what matters most in sales, because even with a technically inferior console, Sony kept the large advantage.


With all this in mind, it seems obvious to me that Sony's strategy is to have the most affordable console again, which will inevitably make it less powerful.
We will have the XSX being the most powerful console in the next generation, but Sony seems to be in a comfortable position again. The PS5 will be an amazing console technically, with relevant advantages over the XSX (the SSD will be used massively in PS5 marketing) and above all, cheaper. This in addition to its already renowned exclusives and expected sequences will again take Sony to the top of sales.

Imagine yourself as the ordinary consumer, target audience of the Consoles. When you arrive at the store, you will see a console with its box in the traditional format, powerful as a new generation should be, fast like no other in the market and $100 less than the console next door, which is inevitably more powerful, but with a cabinet format, expensive and without the renowned PS franchises. It is obvious that he will opt for PS5, even the rival having more pixels.

That's the scenario I see Sony looking for, that's why Mark Cerny is so intent on revolution, because the only way to create a powerful console, with a box in the traditional, accessible format, is by changing the current hardware concept. But we can't fool ourselves, all the customization of the PS5 is made to compensate areas where it was necessary to save.

(Sorry for any mistake, I must say that my English is problematic)

 

[joshcrispy]

This guy, I have no idea how anyone thinks he knows what he's talking about

 

[splattered]

Based on all the data we have on the XSX and PS5 I think it's fair to say, Sony wants to have an affordable console again.

First of all, a small retrospective

5th generation of consoles
N64(Most powerful console) -> 34 Million units sold.

PS1(Most affordable console) -> 103 Million units sold.

6th Generation Consoles

Xbox/GameCube (Most Powerful Consoles) -> approximately 50 Million units sold combined.

PS2(Most affordable console) -> 150 Million units sold.


7th Generation Consoles

During Generation 7 Sony made the big mistake of releasing a more expensive console that in practice was inferior to the direct competitor, which gave the X360 at least 5 years of large advantage over the PS3, which could only recover after a series of price reductions and grotesque mistakes made by Microsoft. In the end, it is reasonable to say that there was a technical tie in Generation 7
(Ignoring Wii)


8th Generation of consoles.

Sony launches the most powerful and affordable console, along with highly regarded exclusive titles, which inevitably gave it an absurd advantage. With the launch of XOX, it became even more evident that the price combined with the games is what matters most in sales, because even with a technically inferior console, Sony kept the large advantage.


With all this in mind, it seems obvious to me that Sony's strategy is to have the most affordable console again, which will inevitably make it less powerful.
We will have the XSX being the most powerful console in the next generation, but Sony seems to be in a comfortable position again. The PS5 will be an amazing console technically, with relevant advantages over the XSX (the SSD will be used massively in PS5 marketing) and above all, cheaper. This in addition to its already renowned exclusives and expected sequences will again take Sony to the top of sales.

Imagine yourself as the ordinary consumer, target audience of the Consoles. When you arrive at the store, you will see a console with its box in the traditional format, powerful as a new generation should be, fast like no other in the market and $100 less than the console next door, which is inevitably more powerful, but with a cabinet format, expensive and without the renowned PS franchises. It is obvious that he will opt for PS5, even the rival having more pixels.

That's the scenario I see Sony looking for, that's why Mark Cerny is so intent on revolution, because the only way to create a powerful console, with a box in the traditional, accessible format, is by changing the current hardware concept. But we can't fool ourselves, all the customization of the PS5 is made to compensate areas where it was necessary to save.

(Sorry for any mistake, I must say that my English is problematic)

But what if MS match or beat ps5 price and even throw in value add like 6 months of Gamepass or something?

At that point casual gamers would be walking into a store see two different looking consoles but same price and one advertised as being more powerful... when people see "more powerful" you have to also think they may see this as future proofing their purchase a bit.

You are correct though, this is largely going to come down to price. Jim and Mark said they want a fast adoption rate and then Phil said they won't be outclassed in performance or price and they've already delivered on half of that statement.

Will be very interesting to see things play out.

 

[darkestdame]

God damn I can't wait until the multiplat comparisons are out so these hypotheticals are over.

 

[MasterCornholio]

This guy, I have no idea how anyone thinks he knows what he's talking about

I can't even understand that guy. Is he okay in the head?

But what if MS match or beat ps5 price and even throw in value add like 6 months of Gamepass or something?

At that point casual gamers would be walking into a store see two different looking consoles but same price and one advertised as being more powerful... when people see "more powerful" you have to also think they may see this as future proofing their purchase a bit.

You are correct though, this is largely going to come down to price. Jim and Mark said they want a fast adoption rate and then Phil said they won't be outclassed in performance or price and they've already delivered on half of that statement.

Will be very interesting to see things play out.

Take into account that the strength of a brand is very important as well. Not to mention the selection of games. There's alot more to selling a console than just power and price.

 

[DeeDogg_]

Redirect Notice

That’s already been debunked a few days ago. The streamer changed his name and fooled no one there

 

[Neo_game]

But what if MS match or beat ps5 price and even throw in value add like 6 months of Gamepass or something?

At that point casual gamers would be walking into a store see two different looking consoles but same price and one advertised as being more powerful... when people see "more powerful" you have to also think they may see this as future proofing their purchase a bit.

You are correct though, this is largely going to come down to price. Jim and Mark said they want a fast adoption rate and then Phil said they won't be outclassed in performance or price and they've already delivered on half of that statement.

Will be very interesting to see things play out.

I do not think there will be much in it. At most Sony might undercut Microsoft by 50$ ? Performance wise Xbox might have some 20% more pixels.

 

[Tqaulity]

[Side note]: I've seen a lot of comparisons of PS5 graphics vs PS4 and of course most just take the raw TFLOP number and compare: 10.28 (PS5) vs 1.8 (PS4) = 5.7x. This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. PS5 is actually much stronger than that...if you actually compare the equivalent performance with the same architecture I.e GCN. Cerny said several times in his talk that a PS4 CU is NOT equal to a PS5 CU!

Now follow me here, this is really interesting because Mark Cerny himself actually gave us a nugget during the deep dive. He actually gave a comparable CU count of PS4 CUs in PS5. Remember this?

Now we don't know exactly how Cerny came up with this number, but he did mention that it was at least partly based on transistor count per CU. Either way, if we do the Math here we get the following:

64*2*58*2.23 = 16.55 TFLOPs! => 9x PS4

So based on Cerny's own information, he basically told us that the PS5's compute power is effectively 9x greater than the PS4. Now that is a next gen leap indeed! The combination of the larger CUs plus the astronomical clock speed increase approaches a 10x improvement over PS4

[BONUS] Check this out: If you look a bit deeper and understand these calculations, you will also see this a figure gives great insight into the additional efficiency we can expect with RDNA 2.0 over RDNA 1.0. We already know from AMD's own information that RDNA 1.0 is a 25% IPC improvement over GCN right. So how do we get from 10.23 TFLOPs of RDNA 2 performance to 16+TFLOPs of GCN?

Well based on the numbers above from Mark Cerny, RDNA 2.0 would need to be about 17% more efficient than RDNA 1 (+17% IPC improvement) to get to 16.5 GCN TFLOPs. Let's take a look:

10.23 TFLOPS (RDNA2) *117% = 12.4 TFLOPS (RDNA1)
12.4 TFLOPS (RDNA1)*125% = 16.5 TFLOPS (GCN)

MESSAGE!

#TFLOPS DON'T TELL WHOLE STORY

 

[Metroiddarks]

This guy, I have no idea how anyone thinks he knows what he's talking about

Please don't bring that fanboy here.

We know the deltas between in the systems only someone too dumb enough or fanboy of one company can think
she/he know how different the games could look between the both systems.

Exists many factors which affect in this, many of which we known like for example:

-Raw TF deltas
-SSD bandwidth
-Ram differences
-CPU max clocks
-Both are RDNA 2 (yeah I will believe more in Cerny than some random in twitter)

But others than not:

-How will affect the politics of Xbox to make back compatible its games
-Lockhart will affect in more than just resolution ?
-How the SSD deltas will actually will affect
-How much money/time will put each first party to optimized their engines
-How much the variable GPU/CPU of PS5 will affect its games
-How will affect PS5 have less CU for RT

And this just are just some things which can affect the looks between the games, basically each console can do
some things which the other cannot in just some scenarios but is worth to spend so much money and time?

 

[Mr Moose]

I haven't seen any shouting, other than the imaginary example in your reply. This is simply about the information we have to hand, however inconvenient it seems to be for some people.

There's quite an effort in this thread to muddy the waters and create a sense that the PS5 is the most capable console - even when the official technical specs show the Series X to be more powerful overall. It's understandable, to a degree, as people want to justify purchasing decisions that they've already made. The PS5 will be a fine system with great games but we shouldn't lose sight of the established facts.

As the most powerful next-gen console, the Series X is likely to be the best place to play third-party games.

You've just proved their comment right... :<
Yes, the Series X GPU is more powerful, that's not up for debate.
How it is in real world performance is.
At peak it's roughly 17.5%.
Let's say both are doing 4K/30fps (then again maybe 60 since they have GOOD CPUs now?) how are we going to measure the difference? One has higher settings? High vs Ultra? (I am not a PC nerd so I don't know how that works, is that only if you've got more RAM available?).
Until they are both in the public we won't know, we CAN expect the series X to have a slight advantage in the GPU (peak 17.5%), possibly in resolution or other GPU tasks.

 

[Mr Moose]

This guy, I have no idea how anyone thinks he knows what he's talking about

He needs to lay off the drugs. Is that the Russian guy, MisterXMedia? Fucking Potato high.

 

[Metroiddarks]

[Side note]: I've seen a lot of comparisons of PS5 graphics vs PS4 and of course most just take the raw TFLOP number and compare: 10.28 (PS5) vs 1.8 (PS4) = 5.7x. This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. PS5 is actually much stronger than that...if you actually compare the equivalent performance with the same architecture I.e GCN. Cerny said several times in his talk that a PS4 CU is NOT equal to a PS5 CU!

Now follow me here, this is really interesting because Mark Cerny himself actually gave us a nugget during the deep dive. He actually gave a comparable CU count of PS4 CUs in PS5. Remember this?



Now we don't know exactly how Cerny came up with this number, but he did mention that it was at least partly based on transistor count per CU. Either way, if we do the Math here we get the following:

64*2*58*2.23 = 16.55 TFLOPs! => 9x PS4

So based on Cerny's own information, he basically told us that the PS5's compute power is effectively 9x greater than the PS4. Now that is a next gen leap indeed! The combination of the larger CUs plus the astronomical clock speed increase approaches a 10x improvement over PS4

[BONUS] Check this out: If you look a bit deeper and understand these calculations, you will also see this a figure gives great insight into the additional efficiency we can expect with RDNA 2.0 over RDNA 1.0. We already know from AMD's own information that RDNA 1.0 is a 25% IPC improvement over GCN right. So how do we get from 10.23 TFLOPs of RDNA 2 performance to 16+TFLOPs of GCN?

Well based on the numbers above from Mark Cerny, RDNA 2.0 would need to be about 17% more efficient than RDNA 1 (+17% IPC improvement) to get to 16.5 GCN TFLOPs. Let's take a look:

10.23 TFLOPS (RDNA2) *117% = 12.4 TFLOPS (RDNA1)
12.4 TFLOPS (RDNA1)*125% = 16.5 TFLOPS (GCN)

MESSAGE!

#TFLOPS DON'T TELL WHOLE STORY

Not exactly the difference between flops of both architectures are not equivalent to 58 CU, Cerny was talking about the transistors difference,
the flop difference should between 25% to 40% but will be able to know until RDNA 2 is release just like DF show.

 

[joshcrispy]

Please don't bring that fanboy here.

We know the deltas between in the systems only someone too dumb enough or fanboy of one company can think
she/he know how different the games could look between the both systems.

Exists many factors which affect in this, many of which we known like for example:

-Raw TF deltas
-SSD bandwidth
-Ram differences
-CPU max clocks
-Both are RDNA 2 (yeah I will believe more in Cerny than some random in twitter)

But others than not:

-How will affect the politics of Xbox to make back compatible its games
-Lockhart will affect in more than just resolution ?
-How the SSD deltas will actually will affect
-How much money/time will put each first party to optimized their engines
-How much the variable GPU/CPU of PS5 will affect its games
-How will affect PS5 have less CU for RT

And this just are just some things which can affect the looks between the games, basically each console can do
some things which the other cannot in just some scenarios but is worth to spend so much money and time?

may i quote you as a screen shot? yes im bored so i fight with blue smurf

 

[SegaSnatcher]

It shouldn't matter if it's also on ps4, it should still be able to fully take advantage of ps5 like xbox series x and xbox one.

Ummm, if it has to be designed around the PS4 then yes that means PS5 hardware can't be taken full advantage of. Just the PS4's CPU alone hinders what the developers can do in that game. Just because PS5 has much better hardware doesn't mean they can make it a generational leap compared to the PS4. Only way they can do that is if the game was specifically made for the PS5 and if it was the game would not likely be able to run on the PS4, so basically PS5 is just gonna brute force that game for higher resolutions and frame rates.

 

[Metroiddarks]

may i quote you as a screen shot? yes im bored so i fight with blue smurf

He will reply you and I don't find fun in a debate with a fanboy

 

[joshcrispy]

He will reply you and I don't find fun in a debate with a fanboy

when you're stuck at home doing nada, its fun hahaha

 

[TGO]

First of all, a small retrospective

5th generation of consoles
N64(Most powerful console) -> 34 Million units sold.

PS1(Most affordable console) -> 103 Million units sold.

6th Generation Consoles

Xbox/GameCube (Most Powerful Consoles) -> approximately 50 Million units sold combined.

PS2(Most affordable console) -> 150 Million units sold.

Stop!
Both the N64 and GCN launched at $199
They both more powerful and cheaper then both the PS1 and PS2.
The problem was Sony had already sold more then 10-20 million before those consoles even released.
And Sony only match their price

 

[Metroiddarks]

when you're stuck at home doing nada, its fun hahaha

 

[BluRayHiDef]

Ummm, if it has to be designed around the PS4 then yes that means PS5 hardware can't be taken full advantage of. Just the PS4's CPU alone hinders what the developers can do in that game. Just because PS5 has much better hardware doesn't mean they can make it a generational leap compared to the PS4. Only way they can do that is if the game was specifically made for the PS5 and if it was the game would not likely be able to run on the PS4, so basically PS5 is just gonna brute force that game for higher resolutions and frame rates.

This sounds like bollocks; game code can be altered for each platform to maximize utilization of its particular hardware. For example, Batman: Arkham Knight is SIGNIFICANTLY better on PC than it is on consoles in terms of overall resolution (if a PC can run it in 4K), texture resolution, frame rate, particle and smoke effects, simulated rain, lighting, and physics. When I played it on my PC after playing in on my PS4, I was blown away; it was like a brand new game. By the way, I know that the game was reported to run terribly on PC, but by the time that I played it, it ran amazingly; maybe my computer is just powerful enough to brute-force its way through the game's purported bugs.

 

[ZywyPL]

Based on all the data we have on the XSX and PS5 I think it's fair to say, Sony wants to have an affordable console again.

Except so far nothing in the PS5 screams "affordable" - 16GB GDDR6, UHD BD, not even 1TB of that custom SSD, and the rumors about fancy cooling to keep that GPU clock in check...

Not exactly the difference between flops of both architectures are not equivalent to 58 CU, Cerny was talking about the transistors difference, the flop difference should between 25% to 40% but will be able to know until RDNA 2 is release just like DF show.

Yup, Cerny was comparing transistor count, but still, we know as a fact that RDNA is up to 40% more efficient than GCN, with RDNA2 being even better, the question is how much better, but I think we are save as far as real-world performance go if we take just another 10% extra vs GCN. So that would give a computing power equivalent of a 15,5TF PS4 and 18,2TF XB1 for next-gen consoles, which is pretty damn nice if you ask me.

 

[SegaSnatcher]

This sounds like bollocks; game code can be altered for each platform to maximize utilization of its particular hardware. For example, Batman: Arkham Knight is SIGNIFICANTLY better on PC than it is on consoles in terms of overall resolution (if a PC can run it in 4K), texture resolution, frame rate, particle and smoke effects, simulated rain, lighting, and physics. When I played it on my PC after playing in on my PS4, I was blown away; it was like a brand new game. By the way, I know that the game was reported to run terribly on PC, but by the time that I played it, it ran amazingly; maybe my computer is just powerful enough to brute-force its way through the game's purported bugs.

Yes, you can improve things via the GPU by improving lighting, textures, particles, but again the Jaguar cores limits your world simulation. If a developer built a game specifically with the Zen 2 cores and SSD in mind I guarantee you couldn't just simply down port that game, you'd almost have to have a team totally rebuild that game from scratch specifically for current gen consoles. This is why down porting current gen games on XB1/PS4 to Switch is possible because the Jaguar cores are pretty wimpy. and aren't pushing game design for the most part. Once games start getting built specifically around next-gen consoles, the Switch will have a hard time getting ports.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

Yes, you can improve things via the GPU by improving lighting, textures, particles, but again the Jaguar cores limits your world simulation. If a developer built a game specifically with the Zen 2 cores and SSD in mind I guarantee you couldn't just simply down port that game, you'd almost have to have a team totally rebuild that game from scratch specifically for current gen consoles. This is why down porting current gen games on XB1/PS4 to Switch is possible because the Jaguar cores are pretty wimpy. and aren't pushing game design for the most part. Once games start getting built specifically around next-gen consoles, the Switch will have a hard time getting ports.

Then that's what they'll do: totally rebuild the game from scratch. That's actually what RockSteady did when they fixed the port of Batman: Arkham Knight to PC from console.

 

[SegaSnatcher]

Then that's what they'll do: totally rebuild the game from scratch. That's actually what RockSteady did when they fixed the port of Batman: Arkham Knight to PC from console.

I just hope we get some third party games that are next-gen exclusive at launch. I really want to see some teams take advantage of the much beefier CPU and SSD.

 

[Spreewaldgurke]

 

[Chumpion]

PS5 is not going to sustain 10 TF, that's just a marketing number. Which is theoretical anyway and has little to do with the real world. The power difference is still small.

All I care about is the noise. Sony should be called out if they can't make a quiet console. This is how many generations of noiseboxes now? Especially since MS clearly has the cooling tech sorted out.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

I just hope we get some third party games that are next-gen exclusive at launch. I really want to see some teams take advantage of the much beefier CPU and SSD.

I imagine that Sony and Microsoft will push developers to implement some features in their games that are exclusive to their platform or at least exclusive to the new generation as a whole.

 

[SatansReverence]

But it don't show Xbox SX to be the most powerful over all when PS5 has the rendering advantage from having a higher clock rate.

No. Just no.

10.23 TFLOPS (RDNA2) *117% = 12.4 TFLOPS (RDNA1)
12.4 TFLOPS (RDNA1)*125% = 16.5 TFLOPS (GCN)

MESSAGE!

#TFLOPS DON'T TELL WHOLE STORY

Cool, but 12.1 tflops of RDNA 2 > "10.2" tflops of RDNA 2.

I find it funny that some users are trying to act as if the XSX is GCN and PS5 is RDNA2.

 

[DavidMarques]

But what if MS match or beat ps5 price and even throw in value add like 6 months of Gamepass or something?

At that point casual gamers would be walking into a store see two different looking consoles but same price and one advertised as being more powerful... when people see "more powerful" you have to also think they may see this as future proofing their purchase a bit.

You are correct though, this is largely going to come down to price. Jim and Mark said they want a fast adoption rate and then Phil said they won't be outclassed in performance or price and they've already delivered on half of that statement.

Will be very interesting to see things play out.

XSX silicon simply seems more expensive, even if Microsoft decides to sell at a loss, which prevents Sony from also selling at a loss? Using 36 CUs seems to me a decision made to lower the production cost of the console, using the absurd 2.23 GHz frequency seems to me a compensation. A good cooling system should be cheaper than 14 CUs more.
Unless I lost something, I don't see how Microsoft could beat the price of PS5.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

PS5 is not going to sustain 10 TF, that's just a marketing number. Which is theoretical anyway and has little to do with the real world. The power difference is still small.

All I care about is the noise. Sony should be called out if they can't make a quiet console. This is how many generations of noiseboxes now? Especially since MS clearly has the cooling tech sorted out.

What about the Tempest audio chip? I've read that it can be used for general computations as well if developers choose to use it for that purpose. So, a PS5 game with zero-decibles audio can surely be processed with a genuine 10 TF...or even 11TF, right? Surely, that's the secret sauce?

 

[DavidMarques]

Stop!
Both the N64 and GCN launched at $199
They both more powerful and cheaper then both the PS1 and PS2.
The problem was Sony had already sold more then 10-20 million before those consoles even released.
And Sony only match their price

Don't forget that the PS1 used CD, a much cheaper media than the N64 cartridges, and that the PS2 had DVD player, which turned it into a console/DVD Player.

 

[Metroiddarks]

Checking an online presentation of GDC of this year, Ubisoft is working in Neural networks which just use a minimum fraction of time to do
a heavy calculation of physics.

Yeah is not perfect because they Neural network have range of error in this complex situation but is enough to make a piece of cloth move
with a minimum use of CPU only using memory.

So now with the new consoles you will have big bandwidth with the new SSD and much ram available so now you as a studio can just use the
same process to make same in all NPCs have "realistic" cloth, will be close enough than a normal user will be not able to see is just an
approximation of a real physics simulation.

I think this is a way in how a big bandwidth and memory can increment how good a game can look.