• 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 Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Analysis [DF] F1 2021: Xbox Series X|S and PS5

Md Ray

Member
Nov 12, 2016
4,140
13,350
785
As much as I like PS5 hardware, and fascinated by the talent of Mark Cerny, I'm still wondering why they opted for 448 GB/s instead of 512 GB/s. I believe they were not sure till last minute, but this is just my thought. That was the only missing thing to make PS5 'perfect'. What would be the extra cost to give the beast 512 GB/s of memory bandwidth ? Just wondering if it was feasible or not.
And here I took this graphics card with 14 Gbps (448 GB/s) and was able to up its bandwidth to 512 GB/s easily. I'm sure Sony could have done even better...


That said, the actual performance gains from this 14% increase in BW was very little based on my tests. You need way more than 512 GB/s to see any noticeable perf gains...Take 3070 Ti, for instance, it comes with GDDR6X which gives it 608 GB/s, a massive 36% increase over 3070 but on avg. the Ti is only about 7% faster than 3070 according to the TPU database and the compute power between Ti and non-TI is basically identical.

So my guess is that PS5 wouldn't have benefitted much from 512GB/s due to diminishing returns and probably needed way more than 600+ GB/s for any meaningful perf gains or something like an infinity cache-like setup for much higher effective BW which must not have been viable due to limited power and silicon real estate.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Caio and Lysandros

Lysandros

Member
Jul 28, 2020
1,130
3,997
370
And here I took this graphics card with 14 Gbps (448 GB/s) chips and was able to up its bandwidth to 512 GB/s easily. I'm sure Sony could have done even better...


That said, the actual performance gains from this 14% increase in BW was very little based on my tests. You need way more than 512 GB/s to see any meaningful difference in perf...Take 3070 Ti, for instance, it comes with GDDR6X which gives it 608 GB/s, a massive 36% increase over 3070 but on avg. the Ti is only about 7% faster than 3070 according to the TPU database and the compute power between Ti and non-TI is basically identical.

So my guess is that PS5 wouldn't have benefitted much from 512GB/s due to diminishing returns and probably needed something way more than 600+ GB/s or something like an infinity cache-like setup for much higher effective BW which must not have been viable due to limited power and silicon real estate.
Nice work. But we should also remember that PS5 is an APU not a discrete GPU, bandwidth requirement of the CPU and the Tempest Engine are also there within the 448 GB/s pool along with bandwidth contention, this has the potential to change the picture somewhat i think.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Md Ray

JackMcGunns

Member
Nov 26, 2018
821
1,521
390
Last gen we rarely got parity. The PS4 was usually outpacing the XBO in one area or another, for most games. It did change somewhat with the XBO X, which usually outperformed the Pro.

Of course, this gen we had a shit show before launch with many Xbox fanboys trying to claim that the Series X would wipe the floor with the PS5 when it came to resolution and frame rate. That the 18% advantage the Series X had in Tflops would be a 20%-40% performance increase in all games. Well, that didn't happen, so really parity is almost like a win for the PS5.


Right, but the point is that WHEN there was parity, people called it what it is, not AHA! ESRAM doing its thing! Dat secret sauce is real!! straight up clowns in here over a game that performs exactly the same, its simply hitting the target it's meant to hit, nothing to see here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

Mr Moose

Member
Sep 10, 2013
6,814
15,074
985
England
Right, but the point is that WHEN there was parity, people called it what it is, not AHA! ESRAM doing its thing! Dat secret sauce is real!! straight up clowns in here over a game that performs exactly the same, its simply hitting the target it's meant to hit, nothing to see here.
Ah yes, that 32MB of ESRAM.
And that 8GB of DDR3 RAM... 68GB/s hype!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lysandros

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
6,681
5,104
1,130
Damn that's some good performance, 2160p 60fps lock. Maybe there's hope for these new consoles yet...

4K60?
Really showing that GTX 1080 from 2016 whose boss.


F1 2021 isnt exactly the most taxing game its expected to be hitting 4K60 and even with relatively poor RT 1440p60 shouldnt be a problem.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
6,681
5,104
1,130
Locked 60 is of course the minimum framerate. Avg would be north off that.
A locked 60 would give you an average of 60.
You know how averages are calculated right?



Are you saying if the framerate was unlocked there would be some overhead?
I agree....im just being glib.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shmunter

SomeGit

Member
Apr 15, 2021
140
190
220
4K60?
Really showing that GTX 1080 from 2016 whose boss.


F1 2021 isnt exactly the most taxing game its expected to be hitting 4K60 and even with relatively poor RT 1440p60 shouldnt be a problem.
As previous 5700XT owner, there's no way you'd get stable 4K60 on F1 2021 on ultra high, since 2020 already chooked hard below 60 when behind the pack on rain or even in some spots in the dry, like the kemmel straight in Spa, lesmo to Ascari in Monza or Concorde in Canada. Off the top of my head, probably more.

75FPS average doesn't tell the whole story.