Kerotan
Member
Yep. So much for being 2TF weaker.Another 0.1% win for the PS5? Time for a 10+ page thread
Yep. So much for being 2TF weaker.Another 0.1% win for the PS5? Time for a 10+ page thread
We know the importance of I/O already. The better question is how capable the PS5 is vs an XSX vs a PC. The latter question is the one we can mostly only speculate about since some key specifications are unknown (mostly latency values). The crowd that claims - and have claimed since that EU5 demo - that I/O is not important for graphics is simply wrong however.You're right it could be a bunch of BS. But I don't think Sony would work on the I/O so much if there wasn't any truth to it. Seems like they are betting pretty big on it.
PS5 was built for UE5 and largely, vice versa. It wasn't a bribe, but it was a partnership of sorts. Perhaps the first test for UE5 will come with the UE5 version of Fortnite to be launched this year.What I would really like to see the UE5 demo on the XSX to see what the differences are. Very curious how it was first shown on tbe PS5.
Did Sony bribe Epic to do that or is the UE5 really designed to take advantage of the PS5s I/O?
I'm interested in seeing what the results will be.
Gold is malleable so they would be useless?As that Remedy dev said himself, its the tools baby.
PS5
Series X current
Series X future
And the higher the karat, the more malleable it gets.Gold is malleable so they would be useless?
Yeah, but MS was too busy working on their products placement everywhere on their dashboard and even before you launch games, so they had to neglect the tools.I'm talking about memory bandwidth too. X1X had 50% more of it when compared to Pro, which is huge.
What's the bandwidth difference like with PS5/XSX? 25% at best. The 6GB segment is actually slower than PS5 by -25%, not all of it is faster like it was last-gen. One X had a clear advantage over Pro from day 1 in hardware and it showed.
PS5 has some advantages over Series X in some aspects and it shows in many games. Similarly, Series X has some advantages over PS5 in some aspects and it shows in those other games. Like my first post in this thread said, "different games will favor different parts of the GPU".
As that Remedy dev said himself, its the tools baby.
PS5
Series X current
Series X future
Gold is malleable so they would be useless?
And the higher the karat, the more malleable it gets.
tells that old games do not take full advantage of parallelization (on top of all the new gpu features). the new engines including ue5 will do it and you will see the difference. be sure.
Because they are FULLRDNA2Mesh ShadingVRSSFS-tools of course. Not the standard tools we all know for a fact PS5 is using.I don't get it. When did the Remedy developer say the XSX tools would be more valuable than the PS5 tools?
Because they are FULLRDNA2Mesh ShadingVRSSFS-tools of course. Not the standard tools we all know for a fact PS5 is using.
Edit: Cant forget SFS
Of course, Im mostly making fun of the idea that tools being behind must certainly be related to not being able to use all these features when its probably more related to unifying the GDK. Because Ive seen this idea entertained quite a lot the last 24 hours.Developers didn't exactly complain about a lack of RDNA2 features. They mostly (per Digital Foundry) complained on how difficult it was for some of them to transition from an SDK to a GDK.
Even with RDNA2 features the PS5 tool kit can still be easier to work with.
Of course, Im mostly making fun of the idea that tools being behind must certainly be related to not being able to use all these features when its probably more related to unifying the GDK. Because Ive seen this idea entertained quite a lot the last 24 hours.
I saw that before but some are calling it BS. I guess the games will show if it's true or not.
You call bullshit but it comes from a Epic dev and I don't know why he would lie lol
Then when MS says "teraflops are everything" where it's clearly marketing, everybody takes it as gospel
People are so crazy... Look it's easy, I help you :
Developer = technical guy like engineers. Loves tech, usually says the truth.
Marketing guys like Phil Spencer = seller, doesn't care that much about tech, says buzzwords like Teraflops or Power of the Cloud, usually lies to sell more products.
For some reason people believe sellers and think tech guys lie while it's mostly the opposite
The actual gameplay runs better in PS5 at slightly higher FPS and without the additional stutter of the XSX version. 'It shouldn't be' (??) but PS5 is a very arrogant machine who doesn't know its place.Isn't the actual gameplay the same on both when it shouldn't be?
The actual gameplay runs better in PS5 at slightly higher FPS and without the additional stutter of the XSX version. 'It shouldn't be' (??) but PS5 is a very arrogant machine who doesn't know its place.
Come on guys the tools are coming. Any day now.
There’s an IGN interview with Control dev that claims Sony stuck with what works and MS has changed things forcing devs to put in work for the new gen.Lazy ports don't make use of the new tools Microsoft implemented for the new generation.
and keeps mocking tools and gpu differences). I save this tooAnd the new tools, we will see amazing things next E3....or the one after. Just you wait.
Whatever.
Both Ps5 and XSX and 6700 are 2 shader engine, 4 shader array systems so they will all be closer than you believe, sooner you start to accept that fact the better and this group of GPU will not compete with their more parrallel bigger brothers with 3+ shader angines and 6+ shader arrays like 6800 and Nvidia equivalents.
Keep dreaming.
yes except sony bought epic shares for 250 millions for this reason they got ue5 presentation and all the talks. The deal means Sony gets a percent interest in the game development studio and publisherYou call bullshit but it comes from a Epic dev and I don't know why he would lie lol
Then when MS says "teraflops are everything, 12>10 so we win" where it's clearly marketing, everybody takes it as gospel
People are so crazy... Look it's easy, I help you :
Developer = technical guy like engineers. Loves tech, usually says the truth. Says complex things but it's worth trying to understand. Has no people helping him communicate. Doesn't make ads. Can be fired if he talks too much. May be a fanboy but it's relatively rare.
Marketing / management guy like Phil Spencer or Jim Ryan = seller, doesn't care that much about tech, says buzzwords like Teraflops or Power of the Cloud, usually lies to sell more products because well... that's his job. Has people helping him communicate and using him for ads.
For some reason people believe what sellers say and think tech guys lie while it's mostly the opposite, maybe because tech guys can't be understood as easily.
I don't get it. When did the Remedy developer say the XSX tools would be more valuable than the PS5 tools?
So are you saying future gaming development engines wont benefit from being designed to take advantage of faster SSDs, faster I/O? I'm pretty sure both Sony and MS have had in house engines redesigned to do just that.yes except sony bought epic shares for 250 millions for this reason they got ue5 presentation and all the talks. The deal means Sony gets a percent interest in the game development studio and publisher
Not sure why you would mention Avengers, which is clearly not just a lazy port.Isn't it ironic that minor details such as shadows can be easily identified across generations, but when PS5 is using the same resolution settings as the PS4 Pro in a game, that gets completely ignored for comparison purposes, e.g., Division 2, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order, Avengers, etc.
Maybe most devs are doing copypaste for both and it works less good on XSX for obvious reasons. Who knows.There’s an IGN interview with Control dev that claims Sony stuck with what works and MS has changed things forcing devs to put in work for the new gen.
I can see requiring new work means getting a handle on it vs doing it as always.
But this brings it back to PS5 ports are more likely to be copy paste PS4 code recompiled vs XsX ports requiring a refactoring for the new hardware forcing opportunities for taking advantage of the new system.
Not sure why final outcomes do not reflect the above workflow.
Because it uses the same resolution settings as PS4 Pro?Not sure why you would mention Avengers, which is clearly not just a lazy port.
And all the other settings are different, which means it's not a lazy port.Because it uses the same resolution settings as PS4 Pro?
That is irrelevant to what he said and what you asked.And all the other settings are different, which means it's not a lazy port.
We were talking about lazy ports. Context matters.That is irrelevant to what he said and what you asked.
Resolution was not changed in that game... that is why he listed it as a game that had no work done in resolution from PS4 Pro to PS5.
You call a lady port a small difference in shadow but ignore no change in the resolution of a game?We were talking about lazy ports. Context matters.
Except, copy paste not possible on XsX as the tools have changed. This is a known fact by now.Maybe most devs are doing copypaste for both and it works less good on XSX for obvious reasons. Who knows.
What? Avengers changed basically everything but resolution, how can it be a lazy port? They stuck with the resolution because PS5 can't push higher pixels. Meanwhile in Crash 4, they didn't even increase shadows from the One S version. The definition of a lazy port.You call a lady port a small difference in shadow but ignore no change in the resolution of a game?
That is his point.
Because apparently Avengers is using the same PS4 Pro resolution settings in the PS5 version. Crash isn't a "lazy port" either but (according to you) it's using the same shadow settings as the Xbox One X version -- which makes it a "lazy port"?Not sure why you would mention Avengers, which is clearly not just a lazy port.
That's a lot of assumptions for which you have no source, evidence, or data.What? Avengers changed basically everything but resolution, how can it be a lazy port? They stuck with the resolution because PS5 can't push higher pixels. Meanwhile in Crash 4, they didn't even increase shadows from the One S version. The definition of a lazy port.
The evidence and data is in the performance videos. PS5 can't sustain half of 4K, averages at half of 1800p and drops to half of 1440p at the lowest. Do you think Avengers devs were too lazy to change the resolution, while they changed basically everything else?That's a lot of assumptions for which you have no source, evidence, or data.
I think you'd also believe that Crash 4 is using Xbox One X shadow settings because Series X can't push higher shadow settings?
Going by your last 6 posts back to back, It seems like you're contributing for most of them.Time for a 10+ page thread
Page 5 soon, 5 more to goGoing by your last 6 posts back to back, It seems like you're contributing for most of them.
I'm saying that Epic was very careful not to mention the Xbox name during and after the presentation for a specific reason. probably an economic reason and absolutely non-technical as some would have you believe.So are you saying future gaming development engines wont benefit from being designed to take advantage of faster SSDs, faster I/O? I'm pretty sure both Sony and MS have had in house engines redesigned to do just that.
Them saying they redesigned UE5 to take advantage of the PS5 should be seen as a win for everyone and not PR, they even explained how scalable UE5 will be, all the way to smartphones.
You think MS is gonna stay with the exact same NVMe specs for future consoles? Some of yall that wanna throw out its all pr seem to accept that MS wont have a better NVMe in future consoles ever. Thats one wild position to take.
I really don't understand why they push the resolution so much on Serie X when by reducing it a bit they could offer a constant 60 fps framerate all the time with a still better resolution than PS5 ... Is this sabotage? ... The PS5 version seems more stable while running at a much lower resolution than the series X version ... Are the developers bad?
They didn't really push anything, they just unlocked the resolution to target 4K60 and called it a day. It's a lazy port after all. Both consoles can't really deal with that resolution in cutscenes, but the devs didn't want to put in the work to get the game to a solid 60 fps all of the time.I really don't understand why they push the resolution so much on Serie X when by reducing it a bit they could offer a constant 60 fps framerate all the time with a still better resolution than PS5 ... Is this sabotage? ... The PS5 version seems more stable while running at a much lower resolution than the series X version ... Are the developers bad?
and keeps mocking tools and gpu differences). I save this too