• 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.

[NX Gamer] AC: Valhalla - XsX vs PS5 - The first REAL head to head battle.

Lysandros

Member
What is XSX being bound by here?
vlcsnap-2020-11-13-18h56m20s419.png



He speaks about 120fps here but it applies to 60fps too.

At this point, i am seriously beginning to believe that PS5 CPU has unified L3 cache cluster like in Zen 3, too much hint about it from Matt Hargett. This would have a much higher impact on game performance than a mere 100Mhz higher clock.
 
Last edited:

Md Ray

Member
Bound by their less than matured devkits.

Jesus of man, do you guys just conveniently ignored by what we has shown, about ps5 super fast and easy to tap development first mover advantages?
Could very well be bound by pixel fillrate, rasterization rate too.

Jesus of man, do you guys just conveniently ignore other parts of the PS5's GPU advantage and continue to tout TF as the absolute indicator and the only metric to compare GPU's perf when it's dangerous to rely on TF alone.
 
Last edited:

rnlval

Member
At this point, i am seriously beginning to believe that PS5 CPU has unified L3 cache cluster like in Zen 3, too much hint about it from Matt Hargett. This would have much higher impact on game performance than a mere 100Mhz higher clock.
At 4K, Ryzen 7 3700X at 3.5Ghz and RTX 3090 would have higher frame rates.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Bound by their less than matured devkits.

Jesus of man, do you guys just conveniently ignored by what we has shown, about ps5 super fast and easy to tap development first mover advantages?
I don't know why you guys denied PS5 being faster to developer with better DevKit to begin with? Now you are trying to use it as argument?

Well let's how it will turn out.
 

geordiemp

Member
XSX GPU has 5MB L2 cache (320-bit bus) which is higher than 4MB L2 cache(256-bit bus).

You dont know ps5 L2 cache, so incorrect.

You dont know ps5 L1 cache structure either. You dont know how ps5 cache coherency and scrubbers work, the specfific architecture and effects on effective bandwidth, so again you dont know.

All we know is a 36 CU part, which is clocked higher,l runs this game better than a 20 % bigger die XSX with 52 CU.

And its too late to make hardware claims and how it might affect performance, we can all see the results.
 
Last edited:
F

Foamy

Unconfirmed Member
So as expected both consoles are fantastic.
Any multi plat games coming where one version is significantly worse than the other is likely on the developer.
 

yurinka

Member
That claim is misleading:

PS5XSXDifferenceNotes:
CPU Clock (single threaded) GHz3.53.8-8.57%
CPU Clock (dual threaded) GHz3.53.6-2.85%
GPU Clock (MHz)2233182522.35%
Shading Units23043328-44.44%
Texture Mapping Units144208-44.44%
Triangles (billion/sec)8.927.322.19%4 Primitive Units x clock speed
Triangles Culled (billion/sec)17.8414.622.19%(Each Primitive unit can cull two primitives) x clock speed
Pixel Rate (GPixel/s) via the ROPS142.9116.822.34%Clock speed x 64 ROPS (Render output unit)
Texture Rate (GTexel/s)321.6379.6-18.03%Clock speed x TMU's (Texture mapping unit)
FP32 (float) performance10.2912.15-18.07%
GPU Cache Speed (MHz)2233182522.35%Tied to clock rate.
SSD Rate (GB/sec)5.52.4229%

It's like cherry picking the specs you want, in order to claim the most powerful console.
Why PS5 has the same GHz with SMT enabled and disabled?

As far as I know they mentioned only its speed with SMT enabled (what you call 'dual threaded' but these consoles have more threads) and not with SMT disabled, that should be faster than the enabled one.

In fact, doesn't always the modern consoles run with SMT enabled? Where do they use SMT disabled?

In addition to this, you cherry picked the stuff to be listed. There are more data where PS5 has a lead like:
-SSD priorities
-SSD speed when compressed (both the default average ~8-9GB/s and the up to ~17-22GB/s for some files when they include Oodle texture in the mix)
-Speed and latency lead in wifi (wifi 6 in PS5 vs wifi 5 in XSX)
-Speed and latency lead in USB (USB 3.2 gen 2 in PS5 vs USB 3.1 gen 1 in XSX)
-Speed and latency lead in wireless pad connection (Bluetooth 5.1 in PS5 vs Xbox Wireless/Bluetooth 4.0 LE in XSX), etc. Note: Series X pad has the same wireless connection than XB1X, which was already slower than the DS4

Regarding FP32 performance, what is the source of this if CPU has a ~3% difference in a console and the GPU has a ~22% in the other one?
 
Last edited:

Md Ray

Member
Why PS5 has the same GHz with SMT enabled and disabled?

As far as I know they mentioned only its speed with SMT enabled (what you call 'dual threaded' but these consoles have more threads) and not with SMT disabled, that should be faster than the enabled one.

In fact, doesn't always the modern consoles run with SMT enabled? Where do they use SMT disabled?

In addition to this, you cherry picked the stuff to be listed. There are more data where PS5 has a lead like the SSD priorities, SSD speed when compressed (both the default average ~8-9GB/s and the up to ~17-22GB/s for some files when they include Oodle texture in the mix), plus both speed and latency improvements in wifi related stats (wifi 6 in PS5 vs wifi 5 in XSX), both speed and latency improvements in USB related stats (USB 3.2 gen 2 in PS5 vs USB 3.1 gen 1 in XSX), both speed and latency improvements in Bluetooth related stats (5.1 in PS5 vs Xbox Wireless/4.0 LE in XSX), etc.

Regarding FP32 performance, what is the source of this if CPU has a ~3% difference in a console and the GPU has a ~22% in the other one?
It's Xbox that does this. SMT disabled clock speed is 3.8 GHz and 3.6 GHz with it enabled for Series X and 3.6 GHz and 3.4 GHz, respectively on Series S.
 

Hinedorf

Banned
Splitting hairs between 2 similar consoles in a deadlock for second place. Would prefer it just be said like last generation that Microsoft has the superior hardware so the fanboy contingent can hold to that while the Sony folks play the fun games.

All I see is less of a reason to waste money on a Microsoft console especially with PC Gamepass being totally worth the cost.

The only console launch title to drive any interest for me is once again an exclusive on a Sony console, not much has changed, not much will.
 

yurinka

Member
It's Xbox that does this. SMT disabled clock speed is 3.8 GHz and 3.6 GHz with it enabled for Series X and 3.6 GHz and 3.4 GHz, respectively on Series S.
It isn't a Series X|S feature, simultaneous multithreading is something common from many common CPUs including all the AMD Zen family, which includes PS5.

When activated the performace is higher even if the clock is smaller. MS just shows the disabled number to show a higher number in the hardware specs sheet, I highly doubt it's used disabled in the console.
 

EnzoArt

Member
I just finished watching the video, but can't comprehend how a 1K thread can evolve out of this minor differences. What a waste.

For this(most-powerfull console ever) :


By video, PS5:

Best framerate
Best resolution
Best Loading
Much less tearing
 

Md Ray

Member
It isn't a Series X|S feature, simultaneous multithreading is something common from many common CPUs including all the AMD Zen family, which includes PS5.

When activated the performace is higher even if the clock is smaller. MS just shows the disabled number to show a higher number in the hardware specs sheet, I highly doubt it's used disabled in the console.
Yeah, I know this.

I was just answering to your:
"Where do they use SMT disabled" bit.

Majority of the games in the here and now and going forward will be using SMT on both consoles, so listing SMT disabled clk speed is pointless as you said, they do this to show higher number in the specs sheet.

EDIT: they probably disable SMT for BC games.
 
Last edited:
For this(most-powerfull console ever) :


By video, PS5:

Best framerate
Best resolution
Best Loading
Much less tearing
Actually by this video he says xsx is better fps by .1 fps average.
Resolution isn't actually known.
 
For this(most-powerfull console ever) :

I think the marketing directly from Microsoft is that it's Microsoft's most powerful console ever. People have freely associated that to mean "world's most powerful" barring the absence of similar marketing by Sony. MS's marketing dept has been very careful with their word usage.
 
Last edited:

TJC

Member
I think the marketing directly from Microsoft is that it's Microsoft's most powerful console ever. People have freely associated that to mean "world's most powerful" barring the absence of similar marketing by Sony. MS's marketing dept has been very careful with their word usage.
MS marketing are not the problem, they are very smart and know the audience crave spec nonsense. I personally can't stand the marketing but I'm not their audience so it dosent really matter. I hope Xbox users who shout specs can just chill now and play the bloody games!
 

CAB_Life

Member
Without knowing the pixel count and post-processing effects I don’t know how useful this is. NX even admits (via Twitter) there’s a capture issue on the Xbox side of things. It’s clear that the rumours of the Xbox tools being slightly behind are likely true at this point too—probably due to programming for two separate SKUs.
 
Top Bottom