• 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.

DF: The Touryst PS5 - The First 8K 60fps Console Game

Loxus

Member
Sep 18, 2020
710
2,914
345
The Caribbean
That list only reflects when the project started, not when it finished.
What I said was the Navi started from the collaboration with Sony for the next gen console GPU, that's why the PS5 appears first in the list despite the design probably being finished after RDNA1 was ready to market and AMD was working on the other features to make RDNA2.
Still proves my point all RDNA GPUs are based on the PS5's GPU as it was started first.

You think Sony/Microsoft didn't know about Infinity Cache? Both of them choose not to implement it in their console, seeing both of them have RT implemented.

You should also know, tech companies have tech ready but purposely hold back and release them in stages, so to give the consumers a reason to upgrade and make a revenue in the process.

So who's to say AMD didn't do the same with RDNA 1&2.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,880
722
1,795
we haven't seen any games with support for hardware assisted VRS and id said it didn't support it. I would guess they know.
What Loxus Loxus posted specifically references a hw-path that allows controlling rasterization parameters on 'some' granularity (hypothetical implementation in the patent references 32x32 which is similar to some VRS implementations). To be more explicit - it's not VRS, but something of a functional superset (Shading rate is 'one' of the rasterization parameters) that 'may' or 'may not' be usable for the purpose (Tier2 VRS needs a sufficiently granular grid to specify shading rates, if said granularity is lower than 32x32, it wouldn't be usable as a direct replacement).
 

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
17,779
10,827
1,460
Now you know full well the touryst launched a whole year later on PS5 with a completely rebuilt engine, made specifically for PS5, not a port of the PS4 title. Series X got an Xbox One X port on the older engine. Not the same circumstances for development, and despite the simplicity or unique nature of the touryst we know full well it isn't a more demanding game than a whole set titles that demonstrate a series x advantage. I would imagine if there was an advantage to be had, the PS5 would display it far more often in more demanding titles if it truly had 100% pixel pushing worth of an advantage over Series X. That's the difference between 8K and 6K. Do you actually believe that to be the case when weaker GPUs than what the Series X has can run the game's 8K at 60fps mode on PC? Clearly something doesn't add up about the touryst. And it's not like Series X has any performance dips, suggesting it has some headroom to go higher. Perhaps with more optimization it would also hit 8K. Not really a guess. Of course it would.

And as for ghostrunner, Doom Eternal runs its ray traced reflections at a higher resolution with respect to its native output, is just as fast, if not faster, with loads more action happening on screen at any given moment, but somehow manages to achieve way better, basically flawless, performance. So obviously we have an example of a game not too dissimilar in certain respects from ghostrunner, but doing a far better job on series x, suggesting the issue is with the dev's optimization on series x.


And you think they learned to double the resolution on lesser hardware in that year?
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
19,533
13,901
2,110
And you think they learned to double the resolution on lesser hardware in that year?
Also, as people brought this up with Saturn vs PSOne, PS3 vs Xbox 360, etc… being able to design a HW and SDK that requires less optimisation to do more is good Architecture (instead of “wait for VRS, wait for SFS, wait for Mesh Shaders, wait for tools, wait for optimisations”… not saying there is no reason to say that though, but just trying to look more broadly at it).

Sony is also guilty of this with some of their choices, their I/O solution is clearly not good at extracting extra performance (loading times) on BC titles, not meant to perhaps by design, and their software stack makes it more difficult to enhance those BC titles visually… MS, in PC fashion (I am using the positive connotation of this), is excelling / doing better at BC.

I do think that once the transition to DirectStorage and similar API’s is done you should see consoles scaling better with faster SSD drives though, so I expect better results for PS5 BC on PS6 basically ;).
 
Last edited:

PropellerEar

Member
Dec 8, 2018
1,639
4,570
445
People resurrecting nearly month old threads to make themselves feel better after the tales comparisons lol

Honestly, it is not that important
Beer Salute GIF
 

Duchess

Member
Oct 2, 2020
1,017
1,948
435
their I/O solution is clearly not good at extracting extra performance (loading times) on BC titles
To be fair, this could be a deliberate design decision. A game could break if it never expected IO to be that fast; data loading often involves using multiple threads and these threads could finish so fast that the main thread hangs indefinitely, etc.

edit: what I'm really referring to is the increased risk of race conditions
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panajev2001a

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
19,533
13,901
2,110
To be fair, this could be a deliberate design decision. A game could break if it never expected IO to be that fast; data loading often involves using multiple threads and these threads could finish so fast that the main thread hangs indefinitely, etc.
Possibly, but it goes back to the downsides of more direct access… upside on new titles is clear, downside on old titles is lacking the ability to improve them as much as one would hope.

Then again, with the new file I/O API’s developers are adopting, I see a PS6 with a faster SSD benefiting much more easily.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
50,748
110,580
1,510
To be fair, this could be a deliberate design decision. A game could break if it never expected IO to be that fast; data loading often involves using multiple threads and these threads could finish so fast that the main thread hangs indefinitely, etc.
I remember in the PS360 era when you put in those faster 7200rpm WD Black HDDs, it would cause the cutscenes, etc, to get choppy and not sync up in some games like Uncharted and the like since the games weren’t designed for the extra HDD loading speed. I think they eventually patched them. So I can imagine the headache on a mass back catalog scenario.
 
Last edited:

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
17,779
10,827
1,460
People resurrecting nearly month old threads to make themselves feel better after the tales comparisons lol

Honestly, it is not that important
I was just replying in the right thread instead of continuing to derail a thread about Tales talking about Ghostrunners & The Touryst .
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
19,533
13,901
2,110
I remember in the PS360 era when you put in those faster 7200rpm WD Black HDDs, it would cause the cutscenes, etc, to get choppy and not sync up in some games like Uncharted and the like since the games weren’t designed for the extra HDD loading speed. I think they eventually patched them. So I can imagine the headache on a mass back catalog scenario.
True, but props need to be given to XSX enhancing loading times of OG Xbox and Xbox 360 titles.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
50,748
110,580
1,510
True, but props need to be given to XSX enhancing loading times of OG Xbox and Xbox 360 titles.
Of course. But that is also why their list is limited with those systems. Lot of work getting each one to run, even in a wrapper not breaking anything. The full catalog won't be opened up not only due to licensing more often than not, but having to test them and patch wrapper side if needed.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Panajev2001a