• 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.

The PlayStation 5 GPU Will Be Supported By Better Hardware Solutions, In Depth Analysis Suggests

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
6,568
15,193
715
Did you know the PS5s CPU bandwidth to the ram wont be 448gb/s because the cpu memory access is determined by there caches.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree, you clearly believe the ps5 has the better ram setup.
No doubt from a dev perspective PS5 offers a simplicity that the X will not.

Hoops will need to be navigated to ensure low frequency data is in slow ram and high frequency is in fast, how that balance will be struck and what limitations will need to be considered to ensure gfx assets don’t balloon outside of 10gig should performance deteriorate. These realities cannot be swept under the rug.

Not sure what MS was thinking. I eagerly await real world results.
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,270
1,225
460
mckmas8808 mckmas8808 liked your post means that you're wrong.

The 2.5 GB for the OS doesn't come out of the XSX 10GB "GPU optimal" ram. That's literally stated by MS in their introduction. It is an explicit statement about location in physical memory.

You can't even get basic shit right.

Given that you're so wrong, and such a console warrior goober, who the hell are you to talk about taking "all sources/breakdowns into account"?

You're literally fucking up ultra basic, confirmed and explained stuff.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah somebody is cherry picking sources LOL
Next thing from you will likely be the ex PS dev who praised the XSX.
No matter how we spin it... the PS5 has a superior ram setup(more available),SSD,a gpu that runs at a higher hz and a better sound chip.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hobbygaming

SlimySnake

Member
Feb 5, 2013
7,435
17,042
1,040
I am aware of the percentage difference, but the SSD and i/o are going to equate to faster loading and a few gimmicks in a few 1st party games. Everyone knows this deep down.

The Only reason why Cerny and sony have made such a fuss of it is because they have been trumped everywhere else. Again, everyone knows this
i/o might help mitigate some of the power limitations. cerny designed, you can even say, overdesigned the shit out of this apu, and it just might be more efficient and get more out of its gpu and cpu than the ms apu.

the ssd might allow for better models and more detail on screen. it might not be super noticeable but you can say the same about 17% more pixels at high resolutions.

cerny is making a big fuss about this because they made it their focus this gen. their i/o block might be huge and the apu might not be as small as we all think. i think they cut down on the gpu on purpose and that purpose was not to save money. i still think this is a $499 console just like the series x. a 10% smaller apu is not going to save them a $100. and i dont think its 10% because the i/o will take more space on the die.



this picture is not to scale but there is a lot of shit in here that the series x doesnt, and thats going to take up space. just how much remains to be seen but this is all by design. they purposefully gave up the tflops war to chase the ssd and i/o efficiencies. they wouldnt have done it if it didnt offer tangible benefits.
 

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
5,050
12,594
835
No doubt from a dev perspective PS5 offers a simplicity that the X will not.

Hoops will need to be navigated to ensure low frequency data is in slow ram and high frequency is in fast, how that balance will be struck and what limitations will need to be considered to ensure gfx assets don’t balloon outside of 10gig should performance deteriorate. These realities cannot be swept under the rug.

Not sure what MS was thinking. I eagerly await real world results.
The logic here is pretty remarkable. You talk about simplicity and gloss over the lack of simplicity in the
i/o might help mitigate some of the power limitations. cerny designed, you can even say, overdesigned the shit out of this apu, and it just might be more efficient and get more out of its gpu and cpu than the ms apu.

the ssd might allow for better models and more detail on screen. it might not be super noticeable but you can say the same about 17% more pixels at high resolutions.

cerny is making a big fuss about this because they made it their focus this gen. their i/o block might be huge and the apu might not be as small as we all think. i think they cut down on the gpu on purpose and that purpose was not to save money. i still think this is a $499 console just like the series x. a 10% smaller apu is not going to save them a $100. and i dont think its 10% because the i/o will take more space on the die.



this picture is not to scale but there is a lot of shit in here that the series x doesnt, and thats going to take up space. just how much remains to be seen but this is all by design. they purposefully gave up the tflops war to chase the ssd and i/o efficiencies. they wouldnt have done it if it didnt offer tangible benefits.
The same can be said of Microsoft, they customized the hell out of their system as well. Them not pushing this side of the system that far could also state it doesn't offer a tangible benefit.

 

zcaa0g

Member
Sep 3, 2018
1,027
1,399
405
The more someone talks, the more full of shit they are. Except Carmack of course.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,338
699
1,705
44
Canada
The majority of TVs in peoples' houses are 720-1080p
Every new TV sold now is 4k, from the low end to the top end. It's been that way for a least a couple of years now. Sony and MS would have never released their current gen 4k consoles if 4k TV owners were a vast minority. Particularly the gaming demographic. Plus unlike this gen (which mostly used the same assets on standard and 4k consoles), there would be a ton of detail simply lost on a 1080p display due to games being designed from the ground up for 4k.
 

rnlval

Member
Jun 26, 2017
829
672
355
Sector 001
gpucuriosity.wordpress.com
I wish you knew what you were talking about. It's amazing that some people want to create this new reality where the only thing gamers were excited about (hardware wise) were Teraflops for all these generations.

During the PS3 generation I was excited about....

- The Cell processor
- The Blu-ray drive
- FINALLY a built-in hard drive!
- Finally having wireless controllers by default
- 6 axis gyro in the controller
- And The Xbox 360's unified RAM solution which sounded AMAZING compared to the PS3's RAM solution.

Notice how NONE of that stuff has anything to do with teraflops. Back then I didn't know what a teraflop was. I think it was around the end of the PS3 generation that I found out what a gigaflop was and how it was calculated.


During the PS4 generation I was excited about........

- The 8 GB GDDR5 RAM the PS4 had
- A controller with a headphone jack, speaker, and share button
- FINALLY a console with an easy to develop CPU and GPU (an APU that I didn't know was possible to create) unlike the PS3.
- A little later PSVR, the 4K drive in the Xbox One, and mid-gen refreshes.

Again most of that stuff wasn't about Teraflops. Did I like the 1.8 TFs that could make most of my games 1080p? YES! But it wasn't the end-all, be-all. It was part of the bigger package that made me excited. The same exist this generation. So, why is it NOW (all of a sudden) we are "ONLY" supposed to be excited about the Teraflop number and nothing else?
Reminder...


Sony's "teh CELL" power marketing.

Sony's CELL power marketing was about GFLOPS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Feb 22, 2017
2,584
1,780
605
No doubt from a dev perspective PS5 offers a simplicity that the X will not.

Hoops will need to be navigated to ensure low frequency data is in slow ram and high frequency is in fast, how that balance will be struck and what limitations will need to be considered to ensure gfx assets don’t balloon outside of 10gig should performance deteriorate. These realities cannot be swept under the rug.

Not sure what MS was thinking. I eagerly await real world results.
In real world performance thr XsX ram will be better, if anyone disagrees with this then lets make this interesting and put our avatars on the line.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
6,568
15,193
715
In real world performance thr XsX ram will be better, if anyone disagrees with this then lets make this interesting and put our avatars on the line.
Perhaps. But any unnecessary complexity negatively impacts the development process.

Budget, laziness, lack of optimization due to non target platform can potentially materialize in less than ideal results.

Would that be sufficient to meaningfully impact real world results? Things are not clear cut, we must see the sausage at the end, and put aside how it's actually made.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: mckmas8808

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
3,951
6,555
675
Yes, I am outwardly calling Mark Cerny a liar, because the how and why is fundamentally obvious as to how one would arrive at a scenario like this. It's the result of pushing the hardware beyond the stated design and as a result concessions must be made. As stated these are relatively low power devices, we're talking sub 300 watts, power conservations is a non-factor.

The only reason this scenario could present itself is due to bottlenecking at the bus, or a voltage limitation related to thermal output and system instability. A bottleneck at the bus would require them to offset compute from the CPU and GPU i.e. require them to be varied and shift function as necessary because data flow saturation would bottleneck it otherwise.

The other reason is seeing as this is an APU they share a die, the amount of heat generated relative to voltage especially to maintain that 2.23Ghz would simply be too high, so either the voltage is limited from the CPU and frequency is lowered, or its limited on the GPU and its frequency is lowered.

No one would design a system of this nature intentionally unless otherwise forced to. If they could maintain both figures indefinitely they would, but the design of the system does not allow it because it was never intended to operate at this voltage and frequency; introduce the shift.

The PlayStation 5 was without any shadow of a doubt a 3.5Ghz and 9.X teraflop fixed frequency system. Its voltage was mated properly and thermals were regulated to handle those figures. At some point far in the development of the system Sony clearly got wind of Microsoft's system capability and being too far along in their design to rework it, they had to manipulate it. They had to implement broader cooling, higher voltages, implement a set of functions which allowed the GPU to push harder at the cost of CPU cycles, allowed the CPU to push harder at the cost of GPU cycles. Both cannot be true at the same time, one has to give for the other to excel.

Again, no one would intentionally design a system in this capacity because there's no advantage to it. It's nonsensical design, there's no leg up over fixed operation. If the system was locked at 2.23Ghz and 3.5Ghz it would be better. However given the above they cannot do that, because the system was never designed to operate at those heights. This is a through and through reworking to try and close a very large divide with their competitor, not intelligent or originally planned system operation.
I also cannot fight the feeling that this whole boost solution is indeed a last time fix to close the gap to XBX already revealed specs (twice the power of X1X) - that Github leak, which turned to be spot-on, revealed base and Pro models BC modes, and a 2GHz clock for the GPU, and people already doubted such high clock (usually the ones who believed in 56/60/64CU and 12/13/14TF PS5, but now say TFlops don't matter), and one of the insiders actually said they were stress testing the GPU, and Mark Cerny even said during his presentation that without boost technology maintaining 2GHz was almost impossible, there's just too much coincidences here that line up too perfectly.

Anyway, we will most likely never get to know what the actual clocks for the PS5 are during gameplay, or what the fixed modes the devs can choose from are.


Every new TV sold now is 4k, from the low end to the top end. It's been that way for a least a couple of years now. Sony and MS would have never released their current gen 4k consoles if 4k TV owners were a vast minority. Particularly the gaming demographic. Plus unlike this gen (which mostly used the same assets on standard and 4k consoles), there would be a ton of detail simply lost on a 1080p display due to games being designed from the ground up for 4k.
But still, all those FullHD TVs are out there for even 15-20 years, if people didn't replaced them for so long that clearly means they are not interested in buying anything new, so until their TVs break and they will have no choice but to get a 4K TV, they gonna keep using them.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,055
8,119
2,055
This nonsense sounds almost exactly like their SSD spiel.
Aside from a very steep learning curve, CELL delivered its intended targets performance and flexibility wise (being able to tackle the issues with the RSX chip delivered too) and has shown it in first party devs’ hands and towards the middle of the generation in the hands of more and more third parties (adapting to PPE’s bottlenecks was common for both, optimising for SPE’s would lead to better code for the VMX-128 units too and better use of the PPX cores in general).

Onto the SSD, the situation is different... how? MS’s Velocity Architecture is betting on the same key HW beats and offering a very similar picture of how high throughput and relatively “low” latency external storage. Very similar API’s too. The main difference is one console has dramatically higher throughput and potentially even less CPU impact (thanks to additional dedicated HW in the SoC).
Free to dodge the point, throw F.U.D., call Cerny a liar, keep insisting that the high frequency design was a last minute change (while in the same breath noting the extremely high frequency of the chip in the GitHub leak you hold dear... which of anything would be a proof this was a speed demon inspired approach more than anything).
 
Last edited:

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
5,050
12,594
835
Aside from a very steep learning curve, CELL delivered its intended targets performance and flexibility wise (being able to tackle the issues with the RSX chip delivered too) and has shown it in first party devs’ hands and towards the middle of the generation in the hands of more and more third parties (adapting to PPE’s bottlenecks was common for both, optimising for SPE’s would lead to better code for the VMX-128 units too and better use of the PPX cores in general).

Onto the SSD, the situation is different... how? MS’s Velocity Architecture is betting on the same key HW beats and offering a very similar picture of how high throughput and relatively “low” latency external storage. Very similar API’s too. The main difference is one console has dramatically higher throughput and potentially even less CPU impact (thanks to additional dedicated HW in the SoC).
Free to dodge the point, throw F.U.D., call Cerny a liar, keep insisting that the high frequency design was a last minute change (while in the same breath noting the extremely high frequency of the chip in the GitHub leak you hold dear... which of anything would be a proof this was a speed demon inspired approach more than anything).
Wow and like I've said about a hundred times now not one of you can put words into action and give a citing example of how this could actually manipulate game design in a way Microsoft's system could not.

We've already been over the tech, give citing practical examples. You guys rinse and repeat the same talking points and always hit the same brick wall, you have no idea whatsoever as to the implications of any of this beyond generic load tasks and caching, that's it.

Miss me with this bullshit.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Panajev2001a

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Feb 22, 2017
2,584
1,780
605
Perhaps. But any unnecessary complexity negatively impacts the development process.

Budget, laziness, lack of optimization due to non target platform can potentially materialize in less than ideal results.

Would that be sufficient to meaningfully impact real world results? Things are not clear cut, we must see the sausage at the end, and put aside how it's actually made.
Yes, and the ps5s lower bandwidth could also cause issues.
As you say things are not clear cut.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,055
8,119
2,055
Wow and like I've said about a hundred times now not one of you can put words into action and give a citing example of how this could actually manipulate game design in a way Microsoft's system could not.
[...]
Miss me with this bullshit.
If you want to say that, as ever, anything beyond the specs XSX provide are a waste of resources, you can state it outright. Suddenly, the burden of proof is never on you to establish that and I will give you that: you are good at flipping the tables and parry instead of just dodging ;).

Sony’s solution is an enabler: same as targeting higher TFLOPS, lowering CPU tax for I/O and allowing main RAM utilisation to be more efficient is a goal for BOTH machines... will wait for you to call out Velocity Architecture as overhyped bullshit and a waste of SoC state since you are buying that and distrusting the other so much.

One console bet on higher max TFLOPS and another on even lower CPU utilisation and higher I/O throughput (you can see the pros of the former, but seeing even less wasted RAM space and more reliance on dynamic data in the latter is only good up until 2.4 GB/s which ought to be enough for anybody... 640KB much?).

You are unsurprisingly only thinking in system wars terms as if one was trying to shit on XSX unable to process there are pros and cons to each machine, strangely you can see the pros of higher TFLOPS for some reasons and how extra can do some this better not necessarily game design completely impossible on the lower max TFLOPS console ;).
You are even ignoring MS’s own Velocity Architecture literature to put down the efforts by Sony in this aspect, arguing against your own talking points haha.

You started with generic shit digs at PS3 and now PS4 while praising anything MS says about XSX as gospel and are throwing unsubstantiated shit one way while expecting others to provide you with maybe working tech samples?! How conveniently low you set the bar for your own arguments.

You guys rinse and repeat the same talking points and always hit the same brick wall, you have no idea whatsoever as to the implications of any of this
Self aware ever or just knowingly projecting?
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,055
8,119
2,055
Yes, and the ps5s lower bandwidth could also cause issues.
As you say things are not clear cut.
It could indeed, there are probably many scenarios where you can achieve theoretical performance peaks be achieved in some cases and fall short on others due to each platform’s strengths and weaknesses. First party titles on XSX can minimise slow RAM usage to a minimum and flex the fast RAM very very high speed while first party titles on PS5 May maximise the use of more RAM as very short term data active cache and flex the streaming bandwidth of the SSD to refresh the data in RAM often as the user moves in the environment. In each case the software optimised for one would run quite a bit worse on the other in term of achieving the platform’s theoretical figures (look at the dev post quoted from the other forum about drop off in bandwidth utilisation as you make active use of the slow RAM on XSX).
 

megreotsugua

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,181
3,115
395
It's ironic how those who laugh at others for "SSD, SSD, SSD!" end up becoming the very people they're mocking, i.e. they keep talking about storage and decompression while there are 4 other steps to the storage-to-memory process: coherency, memory mapping, file I/O, and check-in/load management.
And this is exactly why in the demonstration to showcase the loading in XSeX took 9 SECONDS.

There are those bottlenecks that PS5 custom chips addressed that the XSeX did not.

9-22Gbps of data streaming as you turn your view. That's a game changer right there. Imagine the amount of details.
 

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
5,050
12,594
835
And this is exactly why in the demonstration to showcase the loading in XSeX took 9 SECONDS.

There are those bottlenecks that PS5 custom chips addressed that the XSeX did not.

9-22Gbps of data streaming as you turn your view. That's a game changer right there. Imagine the amount of details.
More totally false information. It took the time it did to load because it wasn't at all configured or optimized to take advantage of any of the advanced storage features.

It was just straight loading off the SSD and nothing more.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,055
8,119
2,055
Wallys on here thinking 16 of 16 is reserved for games... *chortles*
Lol, no way they would keep 0 GB reserved for the OS even with the OS UI in the background as the OS is doing useful work for games themselves. Whether they can store more data in the disk and execute kind of in place... well not unheard of. Remember Xbox 360 OS using only 32 MB of RAM ;)?
 

Leyasu

Member
Apr 25, 2014
5,169
1,574
625
Looks like someone didn't actually learn about the PS5's I/O.
So basically you don't know the answer to his question.
You two are both right. So why don't you explain all the real tangible benefits that we can expect to see! What sort of gameplay examples we should expect and how they will not be possible anywhere else.. Seeing as you two are the experts, this should be easy enough to do.

And this is exactly why in the demonstration to showcase the loading in XSeX took 9 SECONDS.

There are those bottlenecks that PS5 custom chips addressed that the XSeX did not.

9-22Gbps of data streaming as you turn your view. That's a game changer right there. Imagine the amount of details.
Think back to when 3D tvs first came on the market, then remember all those demos that wowed us on Sony tv sets in stores. I was was one of them. I was also convinced enough to plop down 1500 on one of Sonys 3D sets at the time. Only to realise that when I got it home and started actually using it, the 3D was a cross-talk double image mess that was nothing like the DEMOS in the shops... Why? Because those demos running in the shop were nothing more than specially made/optimised to fuck marketing material. At home it was running how it was always going to be without marketing magic. I got refunded for that tv. The disappointment was immense.

Now think back to the spiderman demo and compare it to microsofts 9 seconds demo.... Do you think that that could actually be what was shown for both companies?

The first one being a highly optimised piece of marketing material.

The second running in a real world setting without the marketing magic.

Time will tell. But I am not putting too much faith in anything until I see it running in real time, with full games, and not slices of marketing material.
 
Mar 23, 2018
6,054
7,042
730
And this is exactly why in the demonstration to showcase the loading in XSeX took 9 SECONDS.

There are those bottlenecks that PS5 custom chips addressed that the XSeX did not.

9-22Gbps of data streaming as you turn your view. That's a game changer right there. Imagine the amount of details.
9-22gb's ssd's is nowhere near fast enough for that.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,055
8,119
2,055
9-22gb's ssd's is nowhere near fast enough for that.
I guess we shall see, but if you like this kind of cinical logic (variation of "Cerny LIES!" arguments) expect similar cinism to apply to anything MS mentioned... remember when people quoted performance figures and called them "theoretical peaks" (PS2 vs GCN times) with distrust... you are opening a nice Pandora's Box of bad arguments, not sure why, but fill your boots mate I guess ;)?!
 
Last edited:
Mar 23, 2018
6,054
7,042
730
I guess we shall see, but if you like this kind of cinical logic (variation of "Cerny LIES!" arguments) expect similar cinism to apply to anything MS mentioned... remember when people quoted performance figures and called them "theoretical peaks" (PS2 vs GCN times) with distrust... you are opening a nice Pandora's Box of bad arguments, not sure why, but fill your boots mate I guess ;)?!
Imagine thinking like that.

It's the tech limitation mate. There is nothing to argue here.
 
Last edited:

Night.Ninja

had mod powers bestowed upon him by Monsterkillah
Feb 21, 2016
3,357
3,439
790
I have a question, what could be the worse case games be that ceny alluded to? I assume most developers are going to try and push the PS5 to its limits.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,055
8,119
2,055
Imagine thinking like that.

It's the tech limitation mate. There is nothing to argue here.
There is to argue evidently if you go beyond just a superficial “my TFLOPS are greater than yours” contest. I can see why Phil wanted to never lose the top numbers crown again though, anything else is difficult to make easy PR bullet points and war about.
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
45,545
10,971
2,000
The problem is more turning exitement on other things into "secret sauce" power
Yeah when did this secret sauce power become a thing. There's nothing secret about the fast SSD the PS5 has, the memory mapping, graphic scrubbing, Audio decompression block, etc. I agree with you.

Reading doesn't seem to be one of your strong points does it. Could you please highlight where I worte the word teraflop in my post tat you quoted?

It is good that you are/were excited for all those things. I am not trying to take that away or say that you are wrong. I am merely poking fun at the sony fanboys who have suddenly lost their swagger, and are now bending themselves into human pretzels to follow any narrative that closes the gap.
Just because you didn't use the word "teraflop" doesn't mean that's not what you meant. And I'm not speaking just about you, but a lot of other people too. What do you think it means when people use the term, "close the gap"?

People were always extremely excited about compute, it's been a thing literally forever but it merely went by different names over the years. Don't remember 16, 32, 64 and 128 bits? Yeah, same shit.

What's taking place with people like you is trying to discourage others from leaning into what has always been vastly important, compute. Sony's compute got dwarfed for next-gen, there's no if's, and's or but's about it which brings out individuals like yourself.

You want to detract from its time tested and proven advantages, and excitement because it's no longer a relevant metric for you, because you got forced out of it.

Why would you be excited about compute? You got the inferior offering. Take the L, and take a walk.
The bolded is so weird to see someone to type about the next-gen consoles. Why would I "take the L" and "take a walk"? You say this as if 10.3 TFs of console power is weak or something. How is an 18% difference a "dwarfing" in power? You seem to be taking this all so personallly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PropellerEar

martino

Member
Apr 25, 2013
5,290
2,985
675
France
Yeah when did this secret sauce power become a thing. There's nothing secret about the fast SSD the PS5 has, the memory mapping, graphic scrubbing, Audio decompression block, etc. I agree with you.
in your case the problem seems more (willfull?) ignorance on what the competition is doing
 

Nickolaidas

Member
Jan 18, 2019
3,625
11,345
570
The bolded is so weird to see someone to type about the next-gen consoles. Why would I "take the L" and "take a walk"? You say this as if 10.3 TFs of console power is weak or something. How is an 18% difference a "dwarfing" in power? You seem to be taking this all so personallly.
Didn't you know, silly? If you own the better toy, it makes you the better person!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Feb 22, 2017
2,584
1,780
605
Some People like to to make the tech talk more complicated then it actually is in order to try and downplay any performance advantages
The truth is There is no secret sauce, the xsx has about a 15-20% gpu advantage, a 5% CPU advantage and the PS5 has an ssd with roughly double the performance. games will perform and look a little better on the xsx and load faster on the PS5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leyasu

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Feb 22, 2017
2,584
1,780
605
No doubt from a dev perspective PS5 offers a simplicity that the X will not.

Hoops will need to be navigated to ensure low frequency data is in slow ram and high frequency is in fast, how that balance will be struck and what limitations will need to be considered to ensure gfx assets don’t balloon outside of 10gig should performance deteriorate. These realities cannot be swept under the rug.

Not sure what MS was thinking. I eagerly await real world results.
The xsx ram will give better performance, thats what Microsoft were thinking.
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
5,264
2,586
600
I am aware of the percentage difference, but the SSD and i/o are going to equate to faster loading and a few gimmicks in a few 1st party games. Everyone knows this deep down.

The Only reason why Cerny and sony have made such a fuss of it is because they have been trumped everywhere else. Again, everyone knows this
Utter tosh because ten months ago what they were showing everyone was the SSD. It's what will be the big change this gen.
 
Last edited:

Rolling_Start

Banned
Jul 25, 2019
614
826
325
Yeah somebody is cherry picking sources LOL
Next thing from you will likely be the ex PS dev who praised the XSX.
No matter how we spin it... the PS5 has a superior ram setup(more available),SSD,a gpu that runs at a higher hz and a better sound chip.
No, you moron, PS5 doesn't have a superior ram setup.

It's definitely cheaper, and definitely easier to engineer, but definitely more cost cost effective given the goals that PS5 was engineered against.

PS5 is targetting a lower performance profile than XSX so all of that makes sense. Sony have made the right choice for their platform.

But this:

"No matter how we spin it... the PS5 has a superior ram setup(more available),"

Horseshit. This is just you being a console warrior, unable to even try and understand any of the many factors at play.

And Sony haven't even disclosed the dram reservations, but you still claim it.

For fucks sake, slap yourself in the face and try and think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaMonsta and Ascend

Rolling_Start

Banned
Jul 25, 2019
614
826
325
No doubt from a dev perspective PS5 offers a simplicity that the X will not.

Hoops will need to be navigated to ensure low frequency data is in slow ram and high frequency is in fast, how that balance will be struck and what limitations will need to be considered to ensure gfx assets don’t balloon outside of 10gig should performance deteriorate. These realities cannot be swept under the rug.

Not sure what MS was thinking. I eagerly await real world results.
What MS were thinking is that 448 GB/s would cripple their platform using the 256-bit bus offered to them by default by AMD.

So they engineered something more expensive and significantly faster.

The are no hoops. If 80%+ of your memory accesses aren't by the GPU in the "optimal" 10GB then you've somehow managed to eliminate the GPU as an important factor in games. And also make a CPU use far more bandwidth that it should ever be able to, even with AVX256.

If you're not a concern troll, you actually do know what MS were thinking.

They were thinking "bandwidth - we fucking need more".
 

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
13,088
20,858
1,200
No, you moron, PS5 doesn't have a superior ram setup.

It's definitely cheaper, and definitely easier to engineer, but definitely more cost cost effective given the goals that PS5 was engineered against.

PS5 is targetting a lower performance profile than XSX so all of that makes sense. Sony have made the right choice for their platform.

But this:

"No matter how we spin it... the PS5 has a superior ram setup(more available),"

Horseshit. This is just you being a console warrior, unable to even try and understand any of the many factors at play.

And Sony haven't even disclosed the dram reservations, but you still claim it.

For fucks sake, slap yourself in the face and try and think.
You attacking others discredits everything you’re trying to say.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hobbygaming

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
45,545
10,971
2,000
in your case the problem seems more (willfull?) ignorance on what the competition is doing
That's the thing. In most of the conversations I'm having about the PS5, I don't care about the competition. To some degree it's irrelevant. But yes, the competition (aka MS) is doing some smart work too. But they CLEARLY decided to spend their R&D budget in different ways than Sony has.

These two companies are taking two different paths to reach a similar goal. I think most 3rd party games will be so close to each other that it's not even going to worth the 10 minute video breakdowns to compare them. It'll be the exclusive games that we'll have to watch for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TearInto5th

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,270
1,225
460
No, you moron, PS5 doesn't have a superior ram setup.

It's definitely cheaper, and definitely easier to engineer, but definitely more cost cost effective given the goals that PS5 was engineered against.

PS5 is targetting a lower performance profile than XSX so all of that makes sense. Sony have made the right choice for their platform.

But this:

"No matter how we spin it... the PS5 has a superior ram setup(more available),"

Horseshit. This is just you being a console warrior, unable to even try and understand any of the many factors at play.

And Sony haven't even disclosed the dram reservations, but you still claim it.

For fucks sake, slap yourself in the face and try and think.
Yes it does XSX uses a split ram setup. PS5 does not it is simple as that.
Continue to ignore all the tech video's and articles that explain this.
Would like like these video's to be posted again or are you gonna keep playing the blind eye?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hobbygaming

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
5,050
12,594
835
Yes it does XSX uses a split ram setup. PS5 does not it is simple as that.
Continue to ignore all the tech video's and articles that explain this.
Would like like these video's to posting again or are you gonna keep playing the blind eye?
They don't use a split RAM setup, it's all one addressable pool...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ascend

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,270
1,225
460
No it cannot, but that doesn't make it a split setup. It's one addressable pool.

Next.
The ram speeds are split 560gb/s | 360gb/s

Only 10gb/s(-2.5gb for OS) is available vs PS5 which has all of it's ram running the same speed (ie not split into two pools like XSX)
-whatever the OS uses.
 

DynamiteCop!

Member Series S
Mar 3, 2018
5,050
12,594
835
The ram speeds are split 560gb/s | 360gb/s

Only 10gb/s(-2.5gb for OS) is available vs PS5 which has all of it's ram running the same speed (ie not split into two pools like XSX)
-whatever the OS uses.
You used the wrong terminology, a split RAM setup would refer to separate pools. This is a unified pool comprised of different RAMDAC's.

There's a difference.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Ascend