• 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.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Rumor Hardware PS5, Project Scarlett to hit over 10TFLOPs of power, sources say.

thelastword

Member
Apr 7, 2006
8,985
3,314
1,525
It was a different time, but I have serious doubts the ps2 would have been on par with the Xbox if they had the same launch date. Xbox launched a year and half later.

And the ps3 wasn't anything special to the 360 despite it being newer. It had less powerful GPU, inferior ram setup, and CPU was overrated. The only thing that saved it was Sony top tier devs and throwing tons of money at it.

Modern Sony though. I agree with you.
Almost 2 years apart and you think PS2 wouldn't be more powerful? Yet PS2 was the 60 fps and bandwidth king then..... Do you think the XBOX would be as powerful if it came two years earlier, when specs were locked way before launch..... Try to figure out what type of cpu and gpu XBOX would be decked with for an early 2000 launch from PC tech at the time, it would not beat PS2...... It would not beat Ssx, Tekken tag at launch and certainly not GT3.......

Xbox OG > PS2 (Xbox came out later)

360 > PS3 (Xbox even came out a year earlier too and even had old ass DVD format)

PS4 > Xbox One (same launch time)

Xbox One X > PS4 Pro (Xbox came out later)

Xbox is more powerful in 3 of 4 system comparisons. Actually, since the whole Xbox One/X/PS4/Pro are considered the same generation, MS has the better system in each.
PS3 was more powerful than the 360... Besides, Sony didn't even focus on putting the best traditional PC GPU in, all their tech was focused on cell 4 billion strong. They wanted a custom gpu from cell technology which didn't pan out and so last minute they had to compromise on a weaker GPU at an arm and a leg from NV, imagine how much more money NV was asking for a more powerful GPU then...... There's no way Sony would have paid Nvidia more as they were already money deep with cell......

Also, PS3 was delayed to better peg itself with bluray's launch........ Still, PS3 was more powerful over 360 regardless........
 

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
756
498
560
Germany
No, are you?
A FLOP is a scientific unit to compare floating point calculation power of a given device, which is why 1 FLOP can't be anything else than equal to exactly 1 FLOP.
What you we're saying is something like "100 Honda PS is like 200 Suzuki PS" or "1 Meter in Germany is like 2 Meters in France".
There is no difference between FLOPS generated by different devices, that's the whole point of this unit.
What you fail to realize is FLOP power alone is completely uninteresting for a gaming GPU because, and this is where you seem to have misunderstood games and computers, games require much much more than just floating point calculations.
It's not becuase it's FLOPS are stronger or any other nonsense like that, but because the whole thing has other, better features and it as a whole has better performance because of that.. not the FLOPS alone.
 

TeamGhobad

Member
Oct 15, 2018
2,990
3,022
470
No, are you?
A FLOP is a scientific unit to compare floating point calculation power of a given device, which is why 1 FLOP can't be anything else than equal to exactly 1 FLOP.
What you we're saying is something like "100 Honda PS is like 200 Suzuki PS" or "1 Meter in Germany is like 2 Meters in France".
There is no difference between FLOPS generated by different devices, that's the whole point of this unit.
What you fail to realize is FLOP power alone is completely uninteresting for a gaming GPU because, and this is where you seem to have misunderstood games and computers, games require much much more than just floating point calculations.
It's not becuase it's FLOPS are stronger or any other nonsense like that, but because the whole thing has other, better features and it as a whole has better performance because of that.. not the FLOPS alone.
mong confirmed.
 

KlickKlack

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
311
303
275
No, are you?
A FLOP is a scientific unit to compare floating point calculation power of a given device, which is why 1 FLOP can't be anything else than equal to exactly 1 FLOP.
What you we're saying is something like "100 Honda PS is like 200 Suzuki PS" or "1 Meter in Germany is like 2 Meters in France".
There is no difference between FLOPS generated by different devices, that's the whole point of this unit.
What you fail to realize is FLOP power alone is completely uninteresting for a gaming GPU because, and this is where you seem to have misunderstood games and computers, games require much much more than just floating point calculations.
It's not becuase it's FLOPS are stronger or any other nonsense like that, but because the whole thing has other, better features and it as a whole has better performance because of that.. not the FLOPS alone.
you are 100% right... most people are idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CuNi

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
1,171
520
420
Almost 2 years apart and you think PS2 wouldn't be more powerful? Yet PS2 was the 60 fps and bandwidth king then..... Do you think the XBOX would be as powerful if it came two years earlier, when specs were locked way before launch..... Try to figure out what type of cpu and gpu XBOX would be decked with for an early 2000 launch from PC tech at the time, it would not beat PS2...... It would not beat Ssx, Tekken tag at launch and certainly not GT3.......

PS3 was more powerful than the 360... Besides, Sony didn't even focus on putting the best traditional PC GPU in, all their tech was focused on cell 4 billion strong. They wanted a custom gpu from cell technology which didn't pan out and so last minute they had to compromise on a weaker GPU at an arm and a leg from NV, imagine how much more money NV was asking for a more powerful GPU then...... There's no way Sony would have paid Nvidia more as they were already money deep with cell......

Also, PS3 was delayed to better peg itself with bluray's launch........ Still, PS3 was more powerful over 360 regardless........
and there was the entire problem with the PS3 is it was hindered by the fact Sony designed it around winning a format war. decent console but over priced at launch, question is why didn't the put a 4k blu ray in their 4k machine?
 

ANIMAL1975

Member
Aug 27, 2018
546
622
335
Portugal 🇵🇹
tell me more about suzuki motors
I loled hard but he is right. People got so used to say (wrongly) that x NAVI Tflops are equal to y GCN Tflops, that they forget that is the NAVI GPU that performs 15% better than the other (as in it's equivalent to a GCN card with 15% more Tflops). But if you go and measure how many floating point operations per second each can make, you will get the same number _ if they are 10 Tera you will get 10 Tera reading on both.
Fake edit: please don't shoot the messenger...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Negotiator

Kdad

Member
Sep 20, 2018
325
449
300
and there was the entire problem with the PS3 is it was hindered by the fact Sony designed it around winning a format war. decent console but over priced at launch, question is why didn't the put a 4k blu ray in their 4k machine?
If you WANTED Blu-ray and a gaming machine it was 1/2 the price of buying a Xbox and a separate BD player...so for me I gladly paid full pop (plus it was fully backwards compatible).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

01011001

Member
Dec 4, 2018
400
530
350
PS3 was more powerful than the 360... Besides, Sony didn't even focus on putting the best traditional PC GPU in, all their tech was focused on cell 4 billion strong. They wanted a custom gpu from cell technology which didn't pan out and so last minute they had to compromise on a weaker GPU at an arm and a leg from NV, imagine how much more money NV was asking for a more powerful GPU then...... There's no way Sony would have paid Nvidia more as they were already money deep with cell......

Also, PS3 was delayed to better peg itself with bluray's launch........ Still, PS3 was more powerful over 360 regardless........
saying the PS3 was more powerful is simply false. saying the 360 was more powerful is also false.
both systems had strengths and weaknesses, but the 360 had better hardware for game performance.

the Cell CPU was a monster going by pure potential, but it was not only a hindrance for developers but it also couldn't use its full potential even when used by first party developers (don't even think about bringing up The Last of Us with its 20fps and constant stutters)

then there's the GPU which was simply less powerful than the 360's GPU, which develops needed to overcome by using the Cell's helper cores for GPU tasks.

then we have the awful RAM setup of the PS3, not only did they cut their 512MB of RAM into 2 pools of 256MB, it was also complicated to assign how much of that they wanted to use as VRAM, and if the devs needed more than 256MB dedicated to the GPU they needed to go through loopholes.

meanwhile the 360 had 1 pool of 512MB that devs could easily assign to whatever they wanted to (aside from what was dedicated to the OS of course)

the fucked up RAM situation of the PS3 was one of the reasons it never got system wide party chat btw.


so TLDN: the PS3 had a slight advantage in the CPU department, but was easily weaker/worse in terms of GPU and RAM
 
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
766
723
335
Almost 2 years apart and you think PS2 wouldn't be more powerful? Yet PS2 was the 60 fps and bandwidth king then..... Do you think the XBOX would be as powerful if it came two years earlier, when specs were locked way before launch..... Try to figure out what type of cpu and gpu XBOX would be decked with for an early 2000 launch from PC tech at the time, it would not beat PS2...... It would not beat Ssx, Tekken tag at launch and certainly not GT3.......

PS3 was more powerful than the 360... Besides, Sony didn't even focus on putting the best traditional PC GPU in, all their tech was focused on cell 4 billion strong. They wanted a custom gpu from cell technology which didn't pan out and so last minute they had to compromise on a weaker GPU at an arm and a leg from NV, imagine how much more money NV was asking for a more powerful GPU then...... There's no way Sony would have paid Nvidia more as they were already money deep with cell......

Also, PS3 was delayed to better peg itself with bluray's launch........ Still, PS3 was more powerful over 360 regardless........
1- It's hard to say what exact GPU on PC could match PS2 GPU performance in 2000, but if i am not mistaken GeForce 1 DDR was already out then, and could easily run games like half life 1, unreal tournament 1, max payne 1 in higher framerate, resolution and settings compared to PS2 ports. However PS2 exclusives like Gran Turismo 3, Burnout 2, tekken 4, metal gear solid 2 realy showcased what can be done on PS2 hardware, and I have never seen better looking games running on GeForce 1.

2- PS3 was faster thanks to CELL, but PS3 hardware required a lot of work (developer time and money) in order to finally match and surpass what could be done on x360. So despite PS3 being more powerful on paper in real world scenario many multiplatform games looked and run better on x360 (RDR1, GTA 4, Call Of Duty 3, Splinter Cell 4, Half Life Orange Box, just to name a few), and people had to wait quite some time in order to finally see games like Heavenly Sword, Killzone 2, God Of War 3, Uncharted 1-3, GT5. Even then xbox 360 exclusive games wasnt far off, for example Gears Of War 3, Forza 4, Halo 4, Alan Wake. So in the end I had this impression both xbox360 and PS3 were pretty much equal in power, and that's big achievement for MS considering x360 launched one year earlier. Of course MS has paid a huge price for their rush, because x360 harwdare was more defective (it's not like PS3 wasnt defective, but BD laser problems or YLOD problems werent as frequent as RROD).

But back then times were different, and right now we know for a fact AMD will build similar processors for both Sony and MS. I exepct something like 5-10% difference between PS5 vs Scarlett, and I just hope both will hit double digits numbers... 12TF hopefully :D
 
Last edited:

thelastword

Member
Apr 7, 2006
8,985
3,314
1,525
saying the PS3 was more powerful is simply false. saying the 360 was more powerful is also false.
both systems had strengths and weaknesses, but the 360 had better hardware for game performance.

the Cell CPU was a monster going by pure potential, but it was not only a hindrance for developers but it also couldn't use its full potential even when used by first party developers (don't even think about bringing up The Last of Us with its 20fps and constant stutters)

then there's the GPU which was simply less powerful than the 360's GPU, which develops needed to overcome by using the Cell's helper cores for GPU tasks.

then we have the awful RAM setup of the PS3, not only did they cut their 512MB of RAM into 2 pools of 256MB, it was also complicated to assign how much of that they wanted to use as VRAM, and if the devs needed more than 256MB dedicated to the GPU they needed to go through loopholes.

meanwhile the 360 had 1 pool of 512MB that devs could easily assign to whatever they wanted to (aside from what was dedicated to the OS of course)

the fucked up RAM situation of the PS3 was one of the reasons it never got system wide party chat btw.


so TLDN: the PS3 had a slight advantage in the CPU department, but was easily weaker/worse in terms of GPU and RAM
Power is determined by output, it's the easiest way to gauge the capabilities of said audio/visual consoles......First parties push the consoles to their limits.....Nothing touches GOW 3, GOW Ascension, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, GT5/6 and TLOU from that era, Infamous 2 and Beyond two Souls as well......It was not even close...….

Let's say we are arguing that MS first party is just not as good as SWWS for visuals, that means that their easier to develop console should at least put their graphics up to Sony first party that gen, but that clearly did not happen....If we argue that SWWS was crippled with a hard to develop PS3...….(A hand tied to the back or running with one leg) and they still trounced the devs with the easy to develop console, then it speaks to the raw power of that console...…..Cell was indeed a beast.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

grfunkulus

Member
Dec 23, 2016
475
102
235
1080ti is about 2080 level of performance though. But that's not counting games that will be optimized with VRR and hardware RT. That'll be plenty enough for 3 more years (until the next mid-gen console).

BTW did you just change you tune ? Are you slowly accepting that PS5 could have more than 10tf ? I think it's the first time you talk about PS5 having 1080ti level of performance. :) You always talked only about 1080 before AFAIK.
It absolutely is. And how are you supposed to design a $500 box that is efficiently cooled with a gpu as or more powerful than a 1080ti?

There are small form factor desktop cases that can do it but those preconfigured boxes cost well over a $1,000.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,631
1,671
385
Almost 2 years apart and you think PS2 wouldn't be more powerful? Yet PS2 was the 60 fps and bandwidth king then..... Do you think the XBOX would be as powerful if it came two years earlier, when specs were locked way before launch..... Try to figure out what type of cpu and gpu XBOX would be decked with for an early 2000 launch from PC tech at the time, it would not beat PS2...... It would not beat Ssx, Tekken tag at launch and certainly not GT3.......

PS3 was more powerful than the 360... Besides, Sony didn't even focus on putting the best traditional PC GPU in, all their tech was focused on cell 4 billion strong. They wanted a custom gpu from cell technology which didn't pan out and so last minute they had to compromise on a weaker GPU at an arm and a leg from NV, imagine how much more money NV was asking for a more powerful GPU then...... There's no way Sony would have paid Nvidia more as they were already money deep with cell..

No, I don't think the ps2 would have outpaced xbox considering. We've had this discussion on here before with actual developers who worked on both and the xbox was even further ahead than we know, they just didn't push it because normally.

I just don't view the ps3 as a more capable system when looking at the games. It was less well rounded and relied on a CPU that was overrated. Everything was theoretical or AAA exclusives with the best devs in the world. It just never impressed with its mostly linear exclusives and fixed camera angles, and we already know more multiplatforms looked better on 360.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pawel86ck

VFXVeteran

Industry Professional (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
321
248
445
We'll talk about that later when Death Stranding is out on PC, thank you very much. And we'll see what GPU it'll need to run at PS4 equivalent settings.

Currently which PC game is more technically impressive and beautiful than Death Stranding running on a 1.8 tf GCN GPU ?
Many gamers mistake artistic talent with technical prowess. They are not the same thing. When you say technically impressive, you need to state exactly what is costly to implement and how they somehow managed to do it anyway.
 

thelastword

Member
Apr 7, 2006
8,985
3,314
1,525
A year and a half isn't almost two years, just say it for what it is. And no, I don't think the ps2 would have outpaced xbox. We've had this discussion on here before with actual developers who worked on both and the xbox was even further ahead than we know, they just didn't push it because normally.

I just don't view the ps3 as a more capable system when looking at the games. It was less well rounded and relied on a CPU that was overrated. Everything was theoretical or AAA exclusives with the best devs in the world. It just never impressed with its mostly linear exclusives and fixed camera angles, and we already know more multiplatforms looked better on 360.
PS2 launched March 4th 2000, XBOX launched November 15th........That's about 1 year 8 months apart, not 1 year 6 months.........regardless, that's a massive gulf in time for technology and there was no way XBOX would be more powerful than what we saw in PS2, if it was already spec complete by the year 1999.....for a March 4th release...….

Wait wait!!! Are you saying that devs did not push the easy to develop XBOX with a Pentium III processor, DDR Ram and a Windows NT based OS, with an easier API for devs.....? (we created Direct X)......?......Compared to what? If anything it is the PS2 that was not fully utilized, that exotic architecture with it's Vector Units.........XBOX pushed higher rez, shaders etc, it's kit was utilized.....
 

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
445
319
505
Many gamers mistake artistic talent with technical prowess. They are not the same thing. When you say technically impressive, you need to state exactly what is costly to implement and how they somehow managed to do it anyway.
Easy. In Death Stranding it's really hard to find camera angles where game looks bad.
Their implementation of mesh and texture lod is truly next level.
For example in RDR2 it's unbelievably easy to get a bad looking visual even on PC Ultra settings.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,631
1,671
385
PS2 launched March 4th 2000, XBOX launched November 15th........That's about 1 year 8 months apart, not 1 year 6 months.........regardless, that's a massive gulf in time for technology and there was no way XBOX would be more powerful than what we saw in PS2, if it was already spec complete by the year 1999.....for a March 4th release...….

Wait wait!!! Are you saying that devs did not push the easy to develop XBOX with a Pentium III processor, DDR Ram and a Windows NT based OS, with an easier API for devs.....? (we created Direct X)......?......Compared to what? If anything it is the PS2 that was not fully utilized, that exotic architecture with it's Vector Units.........XBOX pushed higher rez, shaders etc, it's kit was utilized.....
It's all speculation, neither of us know 100%. The gamecube was the closest catalyst for an example. It was also a custom chipset and released near the exact same time frame as Xbox. It was also considered highly efficient in terms if bandwidth and everyone considered it powerful, but the xbox outmuscled it and its custom shader pipeline was also a huge factor.

Absolutely, xbox wasn't pushed. There were multiplatform devs that worked on both that said they simply increased resolution for xbox ports from ps2 and "called it a day." So all those ports could have an even bigger gulf.
 
Last edited:

pawel86ck

Member
Jan 27, 2018
766
723
335
PS2 launched March 4th 2000, XBOX launched November 15th........That's about 1 year 8 months apart, not 1 year 6 months.........regardless, that's a massive gulf in time for technology and there was no way XBOX would be more powerful than what we saw in PS2, if it was already spec complete by the year 1999.....for a March 4th release...….

Wait wait!!! Are you saying that devs did not push the easy to develop XBOX with a Pentium III processor, DDR Ram and a Windows NT based OS, with an easier API for devs.....? (we created Direct X)......?......Compared to what? If anything it is the PS2 that was not fully utilized, that exotic architecture with it's Vector Units.........XBOX pushed higher rez, shaders etc, it's kit was utilized.....
Thanks to modding you can run some PS2 ports on xbox classic at 720p with good framerate, so xbox hardware obviously wasnt utilisted to the fullest in many games if so much GPU power was still left. There was discussion in regards to that over beyond3d forums, where one developer who worked on PS2/Xbox/GC has confirmed they didnt even bother to utilise xbox hardware to the fullest when they were porting PS2 games, they were doing it the fastest way possibe. Games that indeed used xbox hardware to the fullest looked like an early xbox 360 games.

PS2 hardware was really strange, certain games like gran turismo 3 looked insane and run at 60fps on top of that, while PC ports like half life 1 run like a mess. Even extremely cheap PC back then could run half life 1 with much better results than PS2, and not to mention if you had something really fast like GeForce 1 DDR.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
1,733
1,792
385
I know this sounds cliche but why do people look to consoles for 60fps and not PC?

Unless your last game console was literally a SEGA Genesis from the 90s, it's almost 3 decades now where 60fps as a standard does not exist.

It's honestly up there with people asking "Why isn't Grand Theft Auto on Nintendo"? Just make peace with the idea that if it didn't happen the last 3 console cycles, it's not going to happen the next one.

And no, you don't need a $5000 PC to play games at 60fps. I just bought a $500 PC and even though I don't game much, I can still get 1080p/60fps in any title I want. If I want more, then you obviously have to pay more.
Yep, 500 dollars are enough for 1080p60 frame in any game...with N switch level of details of course :lollipop_grinning_sweat:

Good luck on playing something heavy in the last 3-4 years with high details and 60 frame rock solid with a 500 dollars machine...
 
Last edited:

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
1,171
520
420
If you WANTED Blu-ray and a gaming machine it was 1/2 the price of buying a Xbox and a separate BD player...so for me I gladly paid full pop (plus it was fully backwards compatible).
But you could also get a he-dvd add on for Xbox for £99 new. So you were able to get similar on Xbox for cheaper, just with Sony putting blu ray in it’s console it killed off the competition which was a superior product tbh (hd-dvd)
 

VFXVeteran

Industry Professional (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
321
248
445
Easy. In Death Stranding it's really hard to find camera angles where game looks bad.
Their implementation of mesh and texture lod is truly next level.
I'll take a look at it when it ships on PC. I'm sure this would apply to any platform and not just "only" possible on a PS platform.
 

Kdad

Member
Sep 20, 2018
325
449
300
But you could also get a he-dvd add on for Xbox for £99 new. So you were able to get similar on Xbox for cheaper, just with Sony putting blu ray in it’s console it killed off the competition which was a superior product tbh (hd-dvd)
Kinda the point was to not buy the wrong horse no?
 

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
1,171
520
420
Kinda the point was to not buy the wrong horse no?
Well befor the ps3 has blu ray there was a lot of studios behind Hd-DVD at that time there was no wrong horse. When Sony wanted to win the format war they just put blu ray in ps3 . It over priced and delayed the ps3 but won them the format war
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
824
573
465
Power is determined by output, it's the easiest way to gauge the capabilities of said audio/visual consoles......First parties push the consoles to their limits.....Nothing touches GOW 3, GOW Ascension, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, GT5/6 and TLOU from that era, Infamous 2 and Beyond two Souls as well......It was not even close...….

Let's say we are arguing that MS first party is just not as good as SWWS for visuals, that means that their easier to develop console should at least put their graphics up to Sony first party that gen, but that clearly did not happen....If we argue that SWWS was crippled with a hard to develop PS3...….(A hand tied to the back or running with one leg) and they still trounced the devs with the easy to develop console, then it speaks to the raw power of that console...…..Cell was indeed a beast.....
Gow3 last of us infamous and all those games would have performed better on the 360, the reason those games look so good is because PlayStation's studios are the best in the industry, multiplat games always looks and performed better on the 360, and Forza looked better than gturismo, Forza horizon aswell was incredible gears of war 3 was technically incredible as well the 360 had more gigaflops than the PS3 in a nutshell Xbox 360 was as good last gen as PS4 is to Xbox one this gen!
 
  • LOL
Reactions: SynTha1

JordanN

GIF and Meme Champion
Apr 21, 2012
18,921
6,383
955
Brampton, Ontario
Last edited:

VFXVeteran

Industry Professional (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
321
248
445
Then how can you even talk so confidently about the game tech and graphics if you didn't play enough of the game ? It's like you have a predefined opinion about that game somehow ?
You misunderstand. I only implied that the PC version of DS will look better and have more features. I'm basically trying really hard to rebut the "secret sauce" hardware that's supposedly in console hardware to try and bring expectations down a bit. P psorcerer only said that the technique they used for LOD meshes and textures was amazing. I believe him. But that's a technique they used in their graphics engine -- which is portable to other platforms (i.e. works on PC). It's not using hardware in a special way that no other platform can take advantage of.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: CurryPanda

Rolling_Start

Member
Jul 25, 2019
358
486
280
Power is determined by output...
1) State power is determined by output
2) Ignore hundreds of games that were output by both machines
3) Judge X360 power by [a tiny handful of] PS3 exclusives that were never even attempted to be output by X360
4) Drool and shit yourself

This is magnificently fucked up.

Fucking console warriors.
 
Last edited:

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
445
319
505
You misunderstand. I only implied that the PC version of DS will look better and have more features. I'm basically trying really hard to rebut the "secret sauce" hardware that's supposedly in console hardware to try and bring expectations down a bit. P psorcerer only said that the technique they used for LOD meshes and textures was amazing. I believe him. But that's a technique they used in their graphics engine -- which is portable to other platforms (i.e. works on PC). It's not using hardware in a special way that no other platform can take advantage of.
I can think of several things.
For example: custom mip-map scheme with some sort of PRT (partially resident textures), will be close to impossible to make on PC. But can be brute forced by loading everything in memory (if you have enough VRAM).
Same for custom sync for mesh lods. Probably can be just brute-forced. Suboptimal, but possible.
Essentially every technique that saves RAM by clever data structures can be difficult or impossible to implement on PC. May be a funnier case in newer consoles if they will have 24GB of VRAM.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Negotiator

VFXVeteran

Industry Professional (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
321
248
445
I can think of several things.
For example: custom mip-map scheme with some sort of PRT (partially resident textures), will be close to impossible to make on PC.
Would the custom mip-map scheme allow for higher res textures over any other platform? If it's just used to implement 4k textures on machines that can't store the mips but higher end graphics boards can then there is no win here. I'm looking for something like - console using 8k textures because of a special mip-map scheme whereby the PC can only use 4k textures because it would require a card with 24G of VRAM which doesn't exist yet.

Essentially every technique that saves RAM by clever data structures can be difficult or impossible to implement on PC. May be a funnier case in newer consoles if they will have 24GB of VRAM.
Saving RAM is great, but it's not the crux of my argument. I'm looking for something that's impossible on ANY graphics board (AMD or Nvidia) but can be implemented on a console. That's the only way "secret sauce" has any meaning.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,737
2,587
475
Would the custom mip-map scheme allow for higher res textures over any other platform? If it's just used to implement 4k textures on machines that can't store the mips but higher end graphics boards can then there is no win here. I'm looking for something like - console using 8k textures because of a special mip-map scheme whereby the PC can only use 4k textures because it would require a card with 24G of VRAM which doesn't exist yet.



Saving RAM is great, but it's not the crux of my argument. I'm looking for something that's impossible on ANY graphics board (AMD or Nvidia) but can be implemented on a console. That's the only way "secret sauce" has any meaning.
Secret Sauce could simply mean punching above your weight
 

psorcerer

Member
May 1, 2012
445
319
505
whereby the PC can only use 4k textures because it would require a card with 24G of VRAM which doesn't exist yet.
Essentially thats where I was hinting.
But I think with current 5-6gb of usable RAM on consoles even 2x requirement in a PC is brute-forcable now.
And all of that is a speculation. Maybe there's nothing special in DS.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,237
31,928
1,170
Essentially thats where I was hinting.
But I think with current 5-6gb of usable RAM on consoles even 2x requirement in a PC is brute-forcable now.
And all of that is a speculation. Maybe there's nothing special in DS.
They will launch on PC, and all those enhancements will come to the PS5 a few months later when it launches.