This?
Naa he don't care about either console
1) Well not those indicated W by company, many PSU simply fails to deliver it's max PR rated output over longer period of time.
Watch the video. Ps5 will never, every, pull anywhere near 372 watts. There's a hard power limit on consoles. Neither consoles will.This?
PlayStation 5 Power Supply (ADP-400DR) Review
The Sony PlayStation 5 uses a power supply by Delta Electronics. There is no data on the performance of this PSU, so we got curious and fully evaluated it to give you an idea of how the console's PSU performs. Similar to PCs, the quality of the PSU plays a huge role with consoles, too.www.techpowerup.com
Of course, it might be rated 372 W max but consoles shouldn't get near that.
That might be a fire hazard, and a lawsuit for Sony and Microsoft. Especially when you consider smokers, pet owners, dusty homes, or even arid areas of the world. On the other hand, they are power efficient as hell! You won't see this amount of power efficiency on PC.
Am I?
From Hardware Busters Aris's review, of course.
Again, where can I buy or find a ps5 that runs anywhere near 350 watts, or even 372 like you stated? You can't "gotcha" me, as you clearly haven't disputed any of my facts.Am I?
From Hardware Busters Aris's review, of course.
Look at the efficiency % on 230V:
- Around 91% efficient between 50W-100W (20% load)
- A bit over 92% efficient between 150W-200W (50% load)
- Close to 90% efficient at 350W (100% load)
Look at the 80+ Gold efficiency percentage numbers for 20%, 50%, 100% loads on 230V:
Here's the avg efficiency from the same article:
Poor reading comprehension? When I stated 372W I was clearly talking about the PSU's max rated output, not that PS5 itself is going to run/draw that much power.
The answer to that is literally in the post you responded to. Read it nice and slow, and you'll comprehend it, eventually.
So why not state 235w than? Why not just say 63% of what it's rated for? 372×63%=234.36. No where near gold, unlike your made up claims. This isn't how you rate PSU's btw, fyi.
Indeed. On the subject of PS5/5700 XT as a general info; at the max boost clock of 1905 MHz RX 5700 XT stands at 9.75 TF of compute power. Not only PS5's max compute throughput is ~5% higher, it also has ~17% higher pixel fillrate, rasterization throughput and cache bandwidth due to ~17% higher frequency. 5700 XT's main advantage is its dedicated 448 GB/s of bandwidth. Still, i would personally expect PS5 to outperform it by around ~5-10% in games 'if' decently used. There are other factors like the cache scrubbers which should also contribute to better data flow/higher CU saturation in PS5's side.
Where did you see the 5700xt performing over 100fps? I couldn't find a good video myself, but I did see a 5700 non xt paired with a Ryzen 3600 was dipping below 60 a fair bit in one video, in the first pink goo planet. Since the xt is about 10 percent better over the non xt, wouldn't you say the performance figures line up?
I'm guessing he's talking about the Nvidia equivalent?
Probably so, was just stating
SlimySnake
was probably talking about Nvidia hardware (I'm assuming). 
Nah I was wrong. I saw this website had the 5700xt at around 100 fps in their 1080p tests. (You have to search for a 5700 xt for it to show up) but it clearly seems to be wrong. Almost looks like a guestimate.
Let's try this again.
SlimySnake
Alex is not wrong about that. The game's level designs are highly inconsistent in terms of GPU load. The first level with pink crystallines is extremely taxing on the GPU and you'll see dips under 60fps there even on equivalent GPUs. Past this chapter, in other sections of the game, these GPUs get well over 100fps on Ultra at 1080p like you said. So will the consoles if you could unlock the frame rate.
So I'm guessing you never read my posts at all...Let's try this again.
Just take a long hard look at this chart from Aris's review:
Between 50W-100W (75W or 20% PSU load), you can see it's hitting around 91% efficiency. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 20% load is rated at 88%-90% (see the certification chart below FYR)
Between 150W-200W (175W or 50% PSU load), it's a bit over 92% efficiency. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 50% load is rated exactly at 92% (see below chart)
At 350W (100% PSU load), the efficiency is closer to 90%. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 100% load is rated at 88-89% (see below chart)
PS5's Delta ADP-400DR PSU isn't rated or certified by the 80 PLUS program for "80 PLUS Gold" nor there's any label on it, I'm simply stating that it meets those 80 PLUS Gold standards from the tests conducted by Hardware Busters-published article on TechPowerup. I don't know why you're being so hostile towards me for stating this.
Before you make another antagonistic response while taking digs at me and actually misconstruing my words by saying I made things up or that it's NOT meeting any Gold standards... Here's Steve Burke from Gamers Nexus testing a non-standard Dell PSU with no 80 PLUS branding on it anywhere which means it was clearly not rated/certified by the 80 PLUS program, yet it gets very close/reaches those highest 80+ Titanium standards under certain loads based upon their tests, and Steve actually makes mention that it's on "80 PLUS Titanium level" even though the PSU isn't certified as such. So are you going to argue with Steve and say he's making things up because he self-rated the PSU by saying it's Titanium standard at 100% load?
And I'm guessing you never read these at all:
Maybe. English is not my first language.
Non rated as in not 80 PLUS certified you mean?
The source is right up there in the two charts above and explains it well. In the GN's vid, they test a crappy looking OEM Dell PSU which is not rated as Gold or Titanium PSU, yet the efficiency test shows it getting close/reaching Titanium standards, just like PS5's PSU reaches 80+ Gold standards at 20%, 50%, and 100% load on 230V.
Cut to the chase. Is ps5 officially gold rated like you claimed earlier? Or was that another case of something you made up thing in your head again?And I'm guessing you never read these at all:
Between 50W-100W (75W or 20% PSU load), you can see it's hitting around 91% efficiency. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 20% load is rated at 88%-90% (see the certification chart below FYR)
Between 150W-200W (175W or 50% PSU load), it's a bit over 92% efficiency. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 50% load is rated exactly at 92% (see below chart)
At 350W (100% PSU load), the efficiency is closer to 90%. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 100% load is rated at 88-89% (see below chart)
Maybe. English is not my first language.
Non rated as in not 80 PLUS certified you mean?
The source is right up there in the two charts above and explains it well. In the GN's vid, they test a crappy looking OEM Dell PSU which is not rated as Gold or Titanium PSU yet their efficiency tests show it getting close/reaching Titanium standards, just like PS5's PSU reaches 80+ Gold standards at 20%, 50%, and 100%.
If you were on trial, would your above statement be true or false?
Officially rated? Nope. But does it match 80 PLUS Gold? Yes. Just like the Dell's PSU that GN reviewed isn't officially 80 PLUS Titanium rated, but its efficiency comes close/matches that of 80 PLUS Titanium.
Clarify? See the two charts below. This will be my third time posting these:
So according to you, from your own sources, t's NOT gold rated. I figured that, but at least you have confirmed it yourself. Wasn't that hard now, was it?Officially rated? Nope. But does it match 80 PLUS Gold? Yes. Just like the Dell's PSU that GN reviewed isn't officially 80 PLUS Titanium rated, but its efficiency comes close/matches that of 80 PLUS Titanium.
Clarify? See the two charts below. This will be my third time posting these:
Between 50W-100W (75W or 20% PSU load), you can see it's hitting around 91% efficiency. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 20% load is rated at 88%-90% (see the certification chart below FYR)
Between 150W-200W (175W or 50% PSU load), it's a bit over 92% efficiency. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 50% load is rated exactly at 92% (see below chart)
At 350W (100% PSU load), the efficiency is closer to 90%. 80+ Gold standard requirement at 100% load is rated at 88-89% (see below chart)
It's right there, clearly explained how it's meeting 80 PLUS Gold standard.
According to my sources, and 80 PLUS's own chart, the PS5's PSU efficiency results show it meeting 80 PLUS Gold standards, is that wrong or correct?
It's not certified gold. You and I both know this. Please just accept it and move on. Idk why you keep trying to prove me wrong, when your obviously in the wrong, yet again. No where in anything you posted, says anything about it being certified.
It's not certified, I never said it was certified. Looking at the efficiency results from Techpowerup, do you not see it meeting 80 PLUS Gold efficiency numbers? Be honest now.
It wouldn't matter if it's efficiency is anywhere between bronze or platinum. The point is, you claimed it's 80+ Gold, when in reality, it isn't. And I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's not gold certified. I don't know how many other ways to tell you that it's not.
But your argument doesn't make sense in the real world. Certification costs money, rarely do these things get given freely - and as they don't sell the device as a PC PSU, why would they increase their costs for a certificate that no one will see or check?
The way you're responding is very antagonising and condescending.
Mod of War
or
DGrayson
to step in, as obviously getting no where whilst completely derailing this thread.
My argument doesn't make sense? Huh? Md Ray said it's 80+ gold. I proceed to prove that it isn't. You kinda answered your own question. That's exactly why it's not certified, which was my point from one of my first posts in here. I already said let's agree to disagree, so I'm not sure why he's still going on and on about the same thing.
dcmk7
just cause it's one of your friends, doesn't mean you should show any bias. It takes two to tango. I simply proved a point, which doesn't really seem to be sticking with your friend.
Where does one get one of these mythical creatures?
But within the context of a console faceoff where power draw is of interest because the Road to PS5 GDC talk highlighted a paradigm shift in game optimisation for power on PS5, so comparing two different modes of GotG on two very differently designed consoles, it is obvious to everyone following the conversation (IMO) that meeting the criteria of the certification was his point - and your point too (IMO) - right up until he brought receipts that added up.
Follow the conversation. Someone posted a clamp test of the two consoles. I made a comment, and someone tried to use that opportunity to do a gotcha, and failed at doing so. I never claimed it was 80+ Gold as a fact. I merely disputed it.
My main interest in this thread came when I saw someone had posted metro and GotG pictures (IIRC) showing power draw comparisons of the two consoles - which you liked and wanted to see more of.
It brings back the old claim that PS5 is designed to be "more efficient" than XSX by some people here. How can it be if it is using more power to produce same result?Is there really a competition about which console uses less power or more?
That would be sad if true. The stats posted are basically what everyone that's done that testing has said from the beginning, that PS5 uses a bit more power. Don't think it matters. The basic specs of the two machines essentially tell you that much, with Sony going with an ever so slightly larger PSU (350 vs. 315 I think).
Well that depends on how you define efficiency. If your metric is only power consumption sure but thats a truncated way to view it. What about BOM, Sony packing in the advanced controller and SSD advancements with, as you said, roughly equal performance?
Bro, efficiency was always this way.
Right when it was shown by one of the other analysts that PS5 may have a performance upper hand. The timing...
Md Ray
Uh... Where?
thats very interesting. Higher clocks do tend to have higher power usage.
Now this test was done by our very ownDemonCleaner on a RDNA1 card, but while the power consumption might be lower, the curve should be the same.
In my power consumption testing, the PS5 typically hovers around 210 Watts in PS5 SKUs like the Doom Eternal PS5 Port and Spiderman remastered. Metro should be one of the few games thats hitting the 2.23 Ghz clockspeeds while also taxing the CPU. It's hard to say for sure, but the power usage being that high should indicate that the PS5 should not have any trouble maintaining higher GPU clocks without downscaling the clocks and thus tflops to 9 tflops so many here had feared/hoped for. ;p Very interesting stuff.
I might test this in control's photomode.
I also didnt say you were wrong, merely that efficiency can be way broader than power usage. For instance a Tesla uses more power than a Mustang, which one is more efficient?
