-
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.
Performance Test(GigaPixels/s): PS5 outperforms RTX 2080 by a wide margin under heavy load
- Thread starter Agnostic2020
- Start date
K.S v2.0
Banned
What game is this? Also pick up your loot.
K.S v2.0
Banned
Zero tearing? There's plenty of XSX fanboys filling the oceans with their tear--...
Oh SCREEN tearing... right right right...
Last edited:
BacklashWave534
Member
If the PS5 is such a beast why do I have to pick between fidelity and performance in half of the games. My current setup with a 2080, and I9 Processor is able to run 4k 60, at ultra settings in nearly every game. Something is definitely off here. I would like to see the PC specs.
Last edited:
reinking
Gold Member
alucard0712_rus
Gold Member
You mixed up Xbox with PS5 lol.Keep lying to yourself .all the analysis suggests otherwise. If u bought a 2000$ TV to fix it that's on you. Give up the denial stage of grief and move to the next one. Soon bud you will get to acceptance haha. Cheers
You can buy amazing 27" 1440p 165hz IPS for 300-400$ and enjoy Xbox. But even if you buy your 2000$ TV for PS5 you won't get VRR right now. Also PS5 doesn't support 1440p either. Shame.
Last edited:
v_iHuGi
Banned
4K 60 Ultra with that GPU? You´re not kidding anyone here, most of us have High end Pcs & that statement is false.
Low Vs Ultra GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB Performance Review
Running a GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB to play Assassins Creed: Valhalla shows us that we expect it to end with a bearable 57 FPS. With that performance recorded at 1920x1080 res when running High graphics.
Playing Assassins Creed: Valhalla on Ultra 4k is certainly possible with this graphics card and we expect it will return around 41 frames per second at that top scale resolution.
Low vs Ultra summary, certainly a good resolution range for this game would be 1080p. Assassins Creed: Valhalla will get a 1080p Low 108 FPS, or 1080p Medium 85 FPS, and a passable 1080p High 57 FPS, whereas the 1080p Ultra can still get up to 41 FPS.
Low vs Ultra on Assassins Creed: Valhalla with GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB 1080p,1440p,4K
Low versus ultra GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB graphics setting FPS comparison for Assassins Creed: Valhalla on 1080p, 1440p & 4K resolutions
www.game-debate.com
More:
Assassin's Creed Valhalla Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis
Assassin's Creed Valhalla has the most impressive graphics we've seen in a long time. The vast open world of Northern Europe has never looked better. We review the game's performance on 18 graphics cards, including the full Ampere lineup, at three resolutions, up to 4K.
Last edited:
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
For 399 it does not even let me run Vortex mod manager.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
i don't really understand all these numbers but what impresses me is they called the performance test Slug!
I love that.
Its a text renderer.
A line of text when cast in those oldschool machines was called a Slug.
Slug the software renderers out Slugs of text.
Its a clever name indeed.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
4K 60 Ultra with that GPU? You´re not kidding anyone here, most of us have High end Pcs & that statement is false.
Low Vs Ultra GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB Performance Review
Running a GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB to play Assassins Creed: Valhalla shows us that we expect it to end with a bearable 57 FPS. With that performance recorded at 1920x1080 res when running High graphics.
Playing Assassins Creed: Valhalla on Ultra 4k is certainly possible with this graphics card and we expect it will return around 41 frames per second at that top scale resolution.
Low vs Ultra summary, certainly a good resolution range for this game would be 1080p. Assassins Creed: Valhalla will get a 1080p Low 108 FPS, or 1080p Medium 85 FPS, and a passable 1080p High 57 FPS, whereas the 1080p Ultra can still get up to 41 FPS.
Low vs Ultra on Assassins Creed: Valhalla with GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB 1080p,1440p,4K
Low versus ultra GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB graphics setting FPS comparison for Assassins Creed: Valhalla on 1080p, 1440p & 4K resolutions
More:
Assassin's Creed Valhalla Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis
Assassin's Creed Valhalla has the most impressive graphics we've seen in a long time. The vast open world of Northern Europe has never looked better. We review the game's performance on 18 graphics cards, including the full Ampere lineup, at three resolutions, up to 4K.www.techpowerup.com
The site you copied the quotes from is complete nonsense. The screenshots are from Witcher 3
The second link is closer to the truth.
Knitted Knight
Banned
Just when the disaffected thought capping for PC would be a safe heaven....
alabtrosMyster
Banned
The PS4 had similar choices made in its archive, if anything this is a surprise that MS did not understand how key it was to gaming performance.... I recall MS implying (on df I think) that the Xbox had more balance between CUs and rops (i.e. the PS4 had too many rops, that was a waste, they would never get used).
My guess is that MS design their consoles by building performance profiles of existing games and asking something like: what would it take to run the game at 4k + 120fps.. not paying too much attention to new techniques or technologies like raytracing (they include support for it, but it seems to be a side effect of AMD s design, not a goal they set for the new generation of consoles)... Same for storage, sure their SSD is pretty fast for loading the games, quick resume,etc. But it's not much closer to central processing than what they had before.
BacklashWave534
Member
4K 60 Ultra with that GPU? You´re not kidding anyone here, most of us have High end Pcs & that statement is false.
Low Vs Ultra GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB Performance Review
Running a GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB to play Assassins Creed: Valhalla shows us that we expect it to end with a bearable 57 FPS. With that performance recorded at 1920x1080 res when running High graphics.
Playing Assassins Creed: Valhalla on Ultra 4k is certainly possible with this graphics card and we expect it will return around 41 frames per second at that top scale resolution.
Low vs Ultra summary, certainly a good resolution range for this game would be 1080p. Assassins Creed: Valhalla will get a 1080p Low 108 FPS, or 1080p Medium 85 FPS, and a passable 1080p High 57 FPS, whereas the 1080p Ultra can still get up to 41 FPS.
Low vs Ultra on Assassins Creed: Valhalla with GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB 1080p,1440p,4K
Low versus ultra GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB graphics setting FPS comparison for Assassins Creed: Valhalla on 1080p, 1440p & 4K resolutions
More:
Assassin's Creed Valhalla Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis
Assassin's Creed Valhalla has the most impressive graphics we've seen in a long time. The vast open world of Northern Europe has never looked better. We review the game's performance on 18 graphics cards, including the full Ampere lineup, at three resolutions, up to 4K.
Amazing example of one game. Maybe there is something about the word "nearly" you don't understand.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
That's really interesting; does the guy do any analysis on why specifically? Like what about the PS5 makes it good at font rendering? And in particular complex fonts since it "loses" the first test?
Not sure how rendering fonts relates to what else a machine can do... if you look closely PS4 Pro also beats Xox in the second test, but loses handily in the first test.
These seems like some really specific thing.. what did PS4 Pro have that Xbox One X lacked?
Not sure how rendering fonts relates to what else a machine can do... if you look closely PS4 Pro also beats Xox in the second test, but loses handily in the first test.
These seems like some really specific thing.. what did PS4 Pro have that Xbox One X lacked?
Last edited:
Yes because the playstation 4 pro having twice the ROPs and a ton more fill rate totally made it kick the one x in the nards.
diffusionx
Gold Member
We haven't really seen that in multiplatform games yet, but yea, the PS5 looks like a very nicely designed machine.
MightySquirrel
Banned
We already saw a good comparison and PS5 couldn't keep up with 2060 S.
Shmunter
Member
Can’t see a console being great on a monitor sized screen. Fov options are lacking.
ethomaz
Banned
I don't remember sawing comparinson.
What I do see what Alex looking at the config files and finding that Series X and PS5 uses the same setthings as RTX 2060S for RT... that was specific for RT.
Last edited:
assurdum
Banned
No one honestly. But ok.
MightySquirrel
Banned
Here 2060 S at higher RT settings can basically keep locked 4K at 30 rarely dropping below 4K, but both consoles has to drop to as low as 2560x1440 to keep 30 fps with lower RT settings. Cheers
at 15 min
You can find direct PS5 v XSX comparison on DF chanel and in that video PS5 has some RT settings that is even lower than XSX.
To me, graphics are nice enough on consoles that I hardly bother playing on PC anymore, especially when console sales are just as nice as steam sales now.
There was a time when PC was vastly superior to the console since that extra horsepower could give you a vastly improved look as compared to console, consoles rarely had sales, and steam sales were much more generous.
Now, PCs are moresof if you are a FPS fan and want to use mouse and keyboard or you want 120 fps. I much prefer the ease of consoles since I'm not much into mouse and keyboard gaming or 120fps.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I think I'm the only person who noticed the PS4 Pro beats the XOX in the "heavy load" test but we know it rarely does for games.
Does anyone know what the PS4 Pro had that XBox lacked? Did Sony do a similar customization in the PS5?
Does anyone know what the PS4 Pro had that XBox lacked? Did Sony do a similar customization in the PS5?
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Do you really only game on PC for graphics?
Or.. strategy game fan.... or Diablo clone fan... or fan of mods..
I love my consoles too, but I don't game on PC for graphics.. I game on PC because the games are different... and a lot more than just FPS control better on PC than consoles. I couldn't imagine playing a tough strategy game on a console for instance, and while I do find stuff like Diablo 3 fun on console, it is like a different kind of game.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
If you watch the video.
He says 2060S reaches 32fps in 4k native at that scene but it will need DRS to hold locked 30fps... so the resolution needs to drop to reach locked 30fps.
About Xbox Series X he doesn't know how much above 30fps it is running and he doesn't say how much from 4k the console is dropping the resolution.
The filtering quality is a bit better on PC even with the same setthings.
To finalize nVidia does have better RT solution than AMD... that is why Series X is comparable to RTX 2060S in RT performance.
If the game had a 60fps option on consoles we could draw better assumptions.
Last edited:
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
And want to choose resolution, framerate, controllers, mods, emulators, exclusives, disable annoying graphic (d)effects, having perfect IQ, etc...
Last edited:
Md Ray
Member
ROPs, pixel fillrate. 2x more ROPs on Pro provided 55% more throughput in pixel fillrate.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
PS4 and PS4 Pro has 2x more ROPs than XB1 and XB1 X respectively.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Interesting; that makes sense considering the test here then.
basic_element
Member
PS5 is a beast for MS Word if you use fancy fonts.
Last edited:
Tqaulity
Member
SO PS5 is not just a RTX 2070?! You mean it's above a RTX 2080 in performance even approaching a RTX 2080TI? Who would have thought
Oh wait, when I called this exact conclusion and broke this down in detail back in April 2020, how many people believed me?
NeoGaf PS5 GPU Analysis (2080 -2080Ti)
Oh wait, when I called this exact conclusion and broke this down in detail back in April 2020, how many people believed me?
NeoGaf PS5 GPU Analysis (2080 -2080Ti)
Nhranaghacon
Banned
To reiterate, as stated - this Benchmark is condensing font's into Bezier curve data. This implies this benchmark is testing Polygonal Fill Rates by converting font's into primitive vertices, in turn creating vertex cloud data to simulate a primitive peak raw polygon output. It accomplishes this by stringently forcing 2d perimeters which are sufficient when measuring vertex count (vertices that in turn can be calculated then converted into a sum total raw polygon I/O when measured against pixels - hence the utilization of the word "GigaPixel" - a word commonly relegated to photography, but adapted for use in this specific instance for a font rendering benchmark meant to in fact interpret that data as Vertex cloud data) in order to conclude a max Polygon Fill Rate in quantitative Gigapixel form. By utilizing this method it also quickly assesses Texture Fill Rate, bitmap performance and any other perimeters unaccounted for.
Also important to note, as standard developer's have quit utilizing development time to create pixel rasterization ie: 2d games - they have largely abandoned this method in leu of painting 2d asset's atop 3d planes, being that these font's tested are specific and nuanced Bezier data down to the letter, the standard grid a 2d character is painted on has far less vertices than a word or, in this case letters individually written to form a word using vertex data. Hence the reason this is a good lowlevel solution on which to benchmark peak polygonal output.
Also important to note, as standard developer's have quit utilizing development time to create pixel rasterization ie: 2d games - they have largely abandoned this method in leu of painting 2d asset's atop 3d planes, being that these font's tested are specific and nuanced Bezier data down to the letter, the standard grid a 2d character is painted on has far less vertices than a word or, in this case letters individually written to form a word using vertex data. Hence the reason this is a good lowlevel solution on which to benchmark peak polygonal output.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
This is a specific test of essentially 2D performance using the GPU.SO PS5 is not just a RTX 2070?! You mean it's above a RTX 2080 in performance even approaching a RTX 2080TI? Who would have thought
Oh wait, when I called this exact conclusion and broke this down in detail back in April 2020, how many people believed me?
NeoGaf PS5 GPU Analysis (2080 -2080Ti)
It does not mean the PS5's GPU is 2080/2080TI levels overall. That's particularly hard to measure since the 20X series has the tensor cores and DLSS really muddies the water on any comparisons.
The PS5 is a fantastic machine with an amazing value either way.
Tqaulity
Member
No this test doesn't. I agree. But as some have pointed out in this thread already, the actual game performance we're seeing thus far in multiplatform games does point to >RTX2080 perf (Call of Duty: CW, AC: Valhalla, Dirt 5, Godfall etc).
alucard0712_rus
Gold Member
I don't even know what to answer. Being played consoles on good monitors since PS3. Zero problems to say the least.
Romulus
Member
What games though? You're just saying 4k 60fps. Are you running games from 2015 or?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
That's great and all but I want to see real world gameplay comparisons. From the Phenix Rising comparisons i have seen, the ps5 sits somwhere between a 2070 and a 2070 super in standard rasterization. Thats pretty much on par with what I was expecting since a 2070 is 9.1 tflops at max clocks and a 2070 super is around 11.
The ray tracing performance in watch dogs is absolutely dreadful with the ps5 matching a 2060 which is a 6 tflops GPU at max clocks.
The ray tracing performance in watch dogs is absolutely dreadful with the ps5 matching a 2060 which is a 6 tflops GPU at max clocks.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It's a mixed bag; games with RayTracing seem to paint a different picture, particularly with DLSS in play vs. similar techniques used on PS5 but not ones with dedicated hardware.
The damn thing is so fast though.. getting above 2070 perf w/ that insane I/O is an incredible value @ $400. And Sony has proven you can do really nice looking RT.. although I do think that will be where next-gen consoles lack compared to PC.
Last edited:
alabtrosMyster
Banned
Well to be honest he has the credentials, but I would be curious to see his test on the series x. My assumption is that he would not release the results of a direct side by side benchmark of that nature, and he answered in a way that would avoid controversy.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
You are selective in your analysis, the idea is that the fill rate bottleneck is not hit on the PS4 pro, it gives you more time for calculations and other portions of the rendering pipeline.
Those is not like the X always offered the best version of a given game.
Shmunter
Member
If 30fps is the cost for rt, who gives a toss. Let’s roll with solid framerates, let pro models don the RT.
Although the COD Cold War shadows at 60 give a good result.
Shmunter
Member
Tried a big TV?
alucard0712_rus
Gold Member
Of course. They are better now, but monitors keep being better too.
I sit close, so even on "smallest" 4K 55 inch TV PPI is awful.
27-32inches at 1440p or 4K is way to go for me. Also less lag, VRR, higher refresh rate etc. AND lower price for same features. Also calibration is easer.
Last edited:
YeulEmeralda
Member
Well I for one rather play games on a TV than a monitor thank you very much and I'm sure I'm not the only one.