Yep and they confirm its not 12tflops of RDNA/NAvi its closer to 9.7 tflops.
No they don't lol, they say that what Phil said could mean both of those scenario.
If Xsx is 10tflops Phil was being truthful, if its 12tf Phil is also being truthful.
we 12 tflops of rdna is more than 2x the power of the X if that were the case phil would have obviously said that. enjoy your <10tflop gpu.
He said power, he could just be doing a tflop multiplier.
Also the one guy points out that box was built to vent extreme heat that a 12tf chip would put out. They don't know but almost every legitimate insider says 12tf rdna and looking like Sony around 13tf.No they don't lol, they say that what Phil said could mean both of those scenario.
If Xsx is 10tflops Phil was being truthful, if its 12tf Phil is also being truthful.
not happening bro. 12 tflops RNDA with RT not happening.
Phil Spencer said:We wanted to have a dramatic upgrade from the Xbox One base console. So when we do the math, we're over eight times the GPU power of the Xbox One, and two times what an Xbox One X is.
He said power, he could just be doing a tflop multiplier.
No it’s not. Efficiency does not dictate raw power. TFLOPS are TFLOPS just because 6 TFLOPS GCN under performs against 6 TFLOPS RDNA, does not mean it’s not 6 TFLOPS. They’re just doing more with it by being more efficient which I am sure they will detail later.we 12 tflops of rdna is more than 2x the power of the X if that were the case phil would have obviously said that. enjoy your <10tflop gpu.
No it’s not. Efficiency does not dictate raw power. TFLOPS are TFLOPS just because 6 TFLOPS GCN under performs against 6 TFLOPS RDNA, does not mean it’s not 6 TFLOPS. They’re just doing more with it by being more efficient which I am sure they will detail later.
That would be great and I hope you're right, but I think Phil would have come out and said 12 TF if true. I've keep wondering if & where 12 has actually been confirmed, because as DF said 12 RDNA is more than 2 times more powerful than the X1X.
Did Microsoft say 12 troops? If so if with that
Agreed,, they dont know anything more than many on this forum.pointles video. they dont know nothing else then we all know from what we been told. so yh let speculate on stuff , make video so people will like it. BS
A 9.7 Tflop 5700 XT would put it about on par with a 2080, so that should give it a better than 2x increase in gaming performance.they said 2x the gpu power of the X which equates to about 9.7 tflop 5700xt
A 9.7 Tflop 5700 XT would put it about on par with a 2080, so that should give it a better than 2x increase in gaming performance.
Nvidia keeps on winning2080 is 20-23% ahead of 5700 XT. Turing Tflops > Navi Tflops. 5700 XT is barely faster than a stock 2060 Super.
2x the GPU performance of Xbox One X is very impressive any way you slice it and Senua Saga looked insane.
2080 is 20-23% ahead of 5700 XT. Turing Tflops > Navi Tflops. 5700 XT is barely faster than a stock 2060 Super.
Ah, I shouldn't post while sick. I was thinking the 5700 XT was only 7.95 teraflops.2080 is 20-23% ahead of 5700 XT. Turing Tflops > Navi Tflops. 5700 XT is barely faster than a stock 2060 Super.
12TF RDNA is equivalent to GCN 18TF, so just by common logic, if AMD really had such GPU on their shelves they would most likely would want to release it and wipe the floor with NV on the PC market, where the actual profit margins are high, instead of keeping it exclusive to consoles where they are sold dirty cheap.
And looking at PC, where all the FPS benchmarks clearly show that NV GPUs have "more processing power" (as Spencer called it) while having quite less TFlops on paper, would further suggest all those rumors actually meant GCN-equivalent TFlops.
And again, XBX does look bigger than X1X, but it's actually 7L vs what? 5-5.5L? The overall shape and proportions are clearly off, but the total capacity is not much bigger, which even further suggests there isn't really god knows how big APU compared to X1X.
So, if we do the math, like Spencer said, it would possibly mean we are looking at ~8TF RDNA, which given it's efficiency is the same as GCN 12TF, a.k.a. twice as much capabilities as X1X. And an 8TF RDNA is EXACTLY what RX5700 is. Now, the rumors/leak say about the PS5 having 40CU GPU, and that's RX5700XT right there, which would go in line with PS5 actually having more powerful GPU. And that's what I would call a "confirmed" info - we know AMD has such GPUs, many of us have them in their PCs, AMD is indeed able to provide Sony/MS with such solutions. And those GPUs are small, 251mm^2 to be exact
12TF RDNA is equivalent to GCN 18TF, so just by common logic, if AMD really had such GPU on their shelves they would most likely would want to release it and wipe the floor with NV on the PC market, where the actual profit margins are high, instead of keeping it exclusive to consoles where they are sold dirty cheap.
And looking at PC, where all the FPS benchmarks clearly show that NV GPUs have "more processing power" (as Spencer called it) while having quite less TFlops on paper, would further suggest all those rumors actually meant GCN-equivalent TFlops.
And again, XBX does look bigger than X1X, but it's actually 7L vs what? 5-5.5L? The overall shape and proportions are clearly off, but the total capacity is not much bigger, which even further suggests there isn't really god knows how big APU compared to X1X.
So, if we do the math, like Spencer said, it would possibly mean we are looking at ~8TF RDNA, which given it's efficiency is the same as GCN 12TF, a.k.a. twice as much capabilities as X1X. And an 8TF RDNA is EXACTLY what RX5700 is. Now, the rumors/leak say about the PS5 having 40CU GPU, and that's RX5700XT right there, which would go in line with PS5 actually having more powerful GPU. And that's what I would call a "confirmed" info - we know AMD has such GPUs, many of us have them in their PCs, AMD is indeed able to provide Sony/MS with such solutions. And those GPUs are small, 251mm^2 to be exact
2080 is 20-23% ahead of 5700 XT. Turing Tflops > Navi Tflops. 5700 XT is barely faster than a stock 2060 Super.
The thing that gets me thinking is, this is MS, and their hardware team is absolutely on point. Sure you can say a lot about their gaming division, or their OS, but hardware? The X was utterly perfect in build.
Now, Sony? They aren’t anywhere near on par with them. Not even close. We can sit and argue about the OD and the games and even the look of the console, but hardware Sony has never been close. Sure the PS4 didn’t make the same mistake MS made, but from a purely hardware point of view, the S is spot on. The only reason it gets shit on is because... well, the obvious issue the S has versus the PS4.
So this is where I get a little puzzled. People honestly not only expect the PS5 to be faster, but also smaller? I just don’t see it.
I can see the Xbox taking a very slight lead over the PS5 “overall”, nothing meaningful, and possibly looking more traditional in terms of form factor. But beating the SX by a wide margin...?
I don’t see it myself, personally. But I also couldn’t say with certainty that everything I just said was utter tripe. First time I’ve felt so on the fence about it all.
MS going first with this stuff means Sony have all the time in the world to catch up, and improve, if they need to. But then that leaves MS at a disadvantage because they can’t just change it all so quickly.
It’s all very interesting regardless, and I’ll be pre-ordering BOTH machines.
Not in Battlefield/Battlefront,, Forza Motorsport/Horizon, Gears 4/5, Doom/Wolfenstein, and all the other well optimized environments, it's literally just a couple of FPS difference, a 5700XT actually goes toe-to-toe with 2070 Super, literally a singel FPS difference between the two across the mentioned titles, if any. So on consoles, which are even more optimized than the PCs will ever be, the actual performance will be even greater. What can I say, if you wan't an NV GPU you're in a wrong neighborhood, it's like wanting to get a gun at sex shot or buy groceries at a car dealer. You wan't an NV GPu go get NV GPU, simple, no need to bitch about consoles hardware and putting in irrelevant PC benchmarks.
MS going first with this stuff means Sony have all the time in the world to catch up, and improve, if they need to. But then that leaves MS at a disadvantage because they can’t just change it all so quickly.
Both consoles will be released a year from now, so basically in best case scenario half a year from now the consoles will have to finalized to be showed with running games, not to mention get on the production line, and you say Sony will have all the time to all of a sudden change what they have been working for the past couple of years? While MS on the other hand, with the same given time won't be able to do a thing because they showed just the case and the name? Sorry but nothing makes sense here.
Don’t forget MS are, it looks like, releasing sooner. Sony look like a December release, and I’m sure Xbox will beat them by a good few months.
Next XB is confirmed by Spencer himself to arrive on holiday season 2020, that would mean the consoles will go toe-to-toe.
That line alone should tell people Phil was talking about TFLOPS metric, because how people want to measure architecture differences? Performance related to architecture gains will look different in different games and different benchmark scenarios.Note he says "when we do the math"
I don't think he would say this if it was based on a in game performance metric.