Fulcizombie
Banned
No because the XSX has fixed clock speeds , the ps5 has variable ones.Woudlnt they all need that then? Isnt that 12.1 Tflops XSX MAX performance too?
Last edited:
No because the XSX has fixed clock speeds , the ps5 has variable ones.Woudlnt they all need that then? Isnt that 12.1 Tflops XSX MAX performance too?
Yes, but the Series X runs at a constant frequency.Woudlnt they all need that then? Isnt that 12.1 Tflops XSX MAX performance too?
No boost on XSX, its numbers are locked.Woudlnt they all need that then? Isnt that 12.1 Tflops XSX MAX performance too?
The Wii? Hello????ps5 got xboxoned.
No console that has won a generation has been weaker than the competition at release.
I do see how they will impact 1st party games.
Again, as I've said multiplatforms will look better on XSeX (and on PC with newer than 2080Ti GPUs)
And?
The split memory is likely both cost savings while giving the CPU super fast access to a fairly large pool of very fast memory. They probably could have done consistent but slower memory like Sony but they probably thought being able to feed the CPU faster would be more beneficial even if not all RAM could do it. I don't remember if it was mentioned, but the slower memory data can likely move to fast memory very fast (if needed). Though that does add a bit of latency but the high speed of the fast memory likely negates can transfer that are needed if ever.Where did you see the CPU, not 16 threads?
People also not noticed the 10gigs on the xbox one series for games, the first slot, memory bandwidth has at a higher frequency. There pool is split. The first pool is. 560gbs. Sony 448gbs all 16 gigs.
I don’t see anything amazing in the ps5, other than the ssd. Very conservative GPU true power (around 9 TF), disappointing Ram bus, mediocre Ram speed, decent CPU (if it can come close to its peak performance number). It is the PS4 all over again, except that MS isn’t in the Xbox one era.Man lets be real for a second here. Both consoles are amazing for what you get for the price.
Even it's 500-600$ it's great power for the price. With ampere likely being pushed to next year now you get a device that is very close to a high end PC for the fraction of the cost.
If I would be on a budged or not already own a powerfull PC, I would be psyched to get such a powerfull device for that price. Everyone should just be happy.
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.Yeah, but the point still stands. In practical, REAL WORLD applications, the difference between the two is like blinking a few extra times. When it comes to actual differences in gameplay, it's next to nothing. PC gamers have been praising SSD's for a long time, I have 3 SSD's and 2 NVME's in my PC and I love them, but even my NVME's, that are faster, don't make a significant difference in any application that uses it. People that want to hold Sony's implementation of the tech as some sort of badge of honor are grasping at straws for reasons as to why their favorite piece of plastic could be better than someone else's piece of plastic.
I'm gonna do the smart thing and just wait for the DF videos on the initial multiplatform games before I decide on which one is "more powerful".
Yeah, but the point still stands. In practical, REAL WORLD applications, the difference between the two is like blinking a few extra times. When it comes to actual differences in gameplay, it's next to nothing. PC gamers have been praising SSD's for a long time, I have 3 SSD's and 2 NVME's in my PC and I love them, but even my NVME's, that are faster, don't make a significant difference in any application that uses it. People that want to hold Sony's implementation of the tech as some sort of badge of honor are grasping at straws for reasons as to why their favorite piece of plastic could be better than someone else's piece of plastic.
wii is a gimmickThe Wii? Hello????
I can already tell from your comment you clearly have a massive bias up your ass so I'm not going any further than this. You don't have a clue what you are talking about though. The only objective metric of "winning" a generation is by sales, so don't even try a "well uhhhh the Wii didn't really win" asspull.
If you take out the release part of that metric (which still isnt even true with that full statement as I already mentioned), pretty much every highest selling console that objectively "won" the sales competition is usually the weaker/weakest hardware. The PS4 (up until the Xbox One X's release) was the only sole exception pretty much. PS1, PS2, Wii, all were generally inferior in hardware aspects to the real competition, and yet they all sold like hotcakes. Why do you think??? Because consumers give a shit about games, not terraflop bullshit.
This is the key part IMO.The raw numbers don't lie, no matter how much certain "features" might be talked up.
There is an argument to be made that most games are designed for asset streaming with a baseline of a PS4 with a 5400RPM HDD. Now the baseline moves up to a very very fast NVMe SSD.Yeah, but the point still stands. In practical, REAL WORLD applications, the difference between the two is like blinking a few extra times. When it comes to actual differences in gameplay, it's next to nothing. PC gamers have been praising SSD's for a long time, I have 3 SSD's and 2 NVME's in my PC and I love them, but even my NVME's, that are faster, don't make a significant difference in any application that uses it.
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.
I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.
But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite?
Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.
Call now to place your pre-order!Xbox Series X and Xbox Platform -
Jump from playing your games on console, PC, mobile and can even stream from your console.
Xbox Game Pass.
Two (2) More Teraflops.
Higher CPU clock speeds.
Sustained CPU and GPU speeds.
Higher memory bandwidth.
If you had to purchase just one console, or buy one console first, the answer is extremely easy; the Xbox Series X!
I don't see how any of that changes what I said which is that there's nothing to write home about specs wise.
It has 25% more memory bandwidth, but 44% more shaders to fill. It'll even out.The SSD loads the game into the RAM. then the Xbox has faster bandwidth than ps5 for access to said ram.
I know how hardware works.The SSD loads the game into the RAM. then the Xbox has faster bandwidth than ps5 for access to said ram.
Except the XSX is better in everything else, not just the gpu (and the real world difference won’t be 18% on the GPU front).5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.
I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.
But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite?
Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.
I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.
But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite?
Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.
Still calling it the Chinese virus I see.
Tons of PS are sold in countries where people don't have as much money, so a more budget friendly system works wonders for sales. They tried PS3 at $600 and look how that turned out. Sales were lousy until they did Slim for $300 and sales shut through the roof years later.
Branding is important, but so is price.
A guy driving an Audi probably doesn't care if his A5 goes up $5000. But a console going up $100+ is a big deal.
Woudlnt they all need that then? Isnt that 12.1 Tflops XSX MAX performance too?
At the current time, subject to change, I kind of agree. I think Sony's basic specs are fine for a significantly cheaper console than X, but putting aside MS possibly shocking us with a cheap price, I'm worried that Sony's SSD will prevent them from being all that much cheaper. And the price of expandable storage might be prohibitive even with off the shelf parts (though MS prior branded HD's for 360 were never reasonably priced at MSRP).Sony overinvested in SSD and 3D Audio imo.
Can we talk abou specs in the PS5 specs thread without someone immediately leaping up to say BUT BUT BUT NO, XBOX IS BETTER SEE? THIS SPEC SHEET SAYS SO.Except the XSX is better in everything else, not just the gpu (and the real world difference won’t be 18% on the GPU front).
The loose comparison would be a ~800 GB pool of slightly-slower DDR3 RAM. Which is... kind of insanely powerful when you think about it.Exactly my sentiments. For people looking at ALLM and VRS, those are baked into the RDNA 2.0 tech so it's not like PlayStation will not have those.
And how do you know that? Seriously, how? I'm as disappointed as the next guy but let's not start making stuff up. You might be right but let's not pretend it's a fact.The point that needs to be understood is that the XSX GPU @1.8GHz can be SUSTAINED. So claiming 12.2TF is truthful and can be expected realistically in games.
That 2.23GHz boost Sony is claiming is a borderline lie because there is no way it can hit that clock speed for anything more than a brief instant. The PS5 is just not a 10.2TF console.
In fact the claim of 2.23GHz at all is extremely disingenuous. It's bordering on lie territory.
The point that needs to be understood is that the XSX GPU @1.8GHz can be SUSTAINED. So claiming 12.2TF is truthful and can be expected realistically in games.
That 2.23GHz boost Sony is claiming is a borderline lie because there is no way it can hit that clock speed for anything more than a brief instant. The PS5 is just not a 10.2TF console.
In fact the claim of 2.23GHz at all is extremely disingenuous. It's bordering on lie territory.
Especially when you're dealing with 4k resolution. Gpu power is what truly matters.Or to work on a cooling solution that works.
Either way they focused on the wrong area. Raw power is far more liberating for developers than an SSD is.
I remember last gen when PS3 was hyped to be much more powerful than XBOX 360 before launch and it turns out it was the 360 that was ahead in the vast majority of multiplatform games. I'll be fine waiting thanks.It's OK, both are already revealed, it's the Xbox, by a decent margin. Chin chin.
And how do you know that? Seriously, how? I'm as disappointed as the next guy but let's not start making stuff up. You might be right but let's not pretend it's a fact.
In contrast X plays 4 gens, increases resolution and adds HDR to old games. And 20% more powerful.
This is a one horse race on paper.
5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.
I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.
But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite?
Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.
PS5 SSD has similar hardware which make it ca. 8GB/s
Agreed, the mental gymnastics by some Sony fans are amazing to watch. I repeat, if this presentation had been done by Microsoft we would have had a billion memes on the internet already.The point that needs to be understood is that the XSX GPU @1.8GHz can be SUSTAINED. So claiming 12.2TF is truthful and can be expected realistically in games.
That 2.23GHz boost Sony is claiming is a borderline lie because there is no way it can hit that clock speed for anything more than a brief instant. The PS5 is just not a 10.2TF console.
In fact the claim of 2.23GHz at all is extremely disingenuous. It's bordering on lie territory.
Well we'll know that when prices are revealed if they targeted the wrong place. You're assuming they're targeting power for price rather than price first power constrained.Man, I think they'll need a pretty sizable price difference if they even want to compete. Its like they (sony and ms) targeted completely different things on this and sony targeted the wrong place.
From a marketing point of view, its so much easier to sell 12 than it is to sell 10. They'll have a tough job, thats for sure.
But then it loads into the RAM.5.5 GB/s versus 2.4 GB/s is pretty significant. It is why Cerny highlighted the texture loading in the context of a player rotating their camera around.
I mean, we have people wringing hands over an 18% difference in tflops.
But more than 100% difference in drive speeds? Nah, won't matter. The only people who care are console warriors amirite?
Current PC SSDs have a read/write around 500-600MB. 5x to 10x faster in a fixed hardware architecture (that will make better use of them than generalized PCs will) seems meaningful.