They trashed nothing.. the even went from UE4, to UE5.1 in steps and they use most UE5 features, they liked that they even could use Zbrush models . And nanite, they did not like Lumen Hardware that much, but are looking into implementing in the future. But with all new tech it takes time. Who knows how clean their own code is.
I feel like you're just grasping at straws, so I google "async likes more cu's" and nothing popped up.
Or maybe it's just simply because AMD raytracing units are 1 to 1 with number of CUs XSX has more (slower) 52 CUs vs PS5 less (faster) 36 CUs.
You never heard of clean code?
Besides, there is absolutely no evidence of XSX commending such an advantage across third party games featuring RT since this infamous "perfect benchmark". Quite the contrary in fact, we have examples like Callisto Protocol where XSX features much lower quality RT reflections. We had a relatively earlier example in the name of Ghostrunner featuring RT reflections where the performance in favor of PS5 was quite big at the same resolution. The newly introduced mode with RT shadows in Elden Ring shows us a PS5 advantage in both resolution and FPS as per Vgtech's analysis. The theoretical max RT intersections per sec metric is just a facet of overall RT performance, there are others like ray bounces which actually scale with clock speed, GPU cache performance, CPU, the VRAM amount/bandwidth and of course the APIs.I feel like you're just grasping at straws, so I google "async likes more cu's" and nothing popped up.
Or maybe it's just simply because AMD raytracing units are 1 to 1 with number of CUs XSX has more (slower) 52 CUs vs PS5 less (faster) 36 CUs.
ray triangle intersection rate
PS5 - 4 x 36 x 2.23 = 321.12 Billion RTI/s
XSX - 4 x 52 x 1.825 = 379.6 Billion RTI/s 16% difference for XSX
In control that you mentioned " Xbox series X has 16% higher performance than PS5"
Has fuck all to do with async compute. Stop grasping at straws. Admit when you are wrong about something.
Oh definitely, it's a game-by-game thing and certain game engines favor certain Hardwares. I just wanted to address the conjecture about async compute and control.
Yeah you called it early on
No. It's not an oversight. I reposted that list and cleaned it up so it's easier to read.
Alex has done deep breakdowns of settings he received from developers comparing them to PC versions. Just off the top of my head, Remedy's Control, Watch Dogs Legion and Doom Eternal.
The entire interview is them pointing out how UE5 is/was so inefficient that they had to come up with their own techniques. Dont make me pull quotes.
Yeah but then why enable it on PS5 at the cost of performance? It clearly performs worse, why don't do the same on Xbox if they were ok by performance provided anyway. Seems like both versions were made by different people not fully aligned each other.
Alex/DF has done it from the files of the PC version of some games that include console-specific settings..... which is very different vs a developer do it who also fully goes into details and development specificities that are within the typical ones protected by NDAs.
only if you want to believe UE5 is a negative for the industry . That article was not that negative at all.. they wanted all features at 60 frames .. So they needed to do some coding , not that weird , as for example Matrix demo is around 30 fps.
No, it is a setting whose implementation is practically "free".
Maybe they simply overestimated the additional headroom offered by PS5 somewhat and overshot their budget to some degree. It's also completely plausible that PS5 settings would result in an even (slightly) higher performance penalty on XSX. Or there is just another thing going on on PS5 in optimization front.
First off, this narrative of the PS5 version clearly performing worse is an exaggeration. Obviously, they felt the performance levels of the PS5 were acceptable. It has lower lows, but that was obviously something they felt was acceptable if it constantly looked better when its running.
People buy the more convenient narrative, the source (or quality of that) doesn't matter.
Remnant 2 doesn't even have lumen enabled and still drops to 720p with frame drops. Fortnite drops below 900p and that is first party and is still using software lumen. It's also not even pushing the hardware that hard.
Can't imagine what artifacts it can cause that would force it to be disabled. CAS looks fine on the PC build.
Well, for once it's the norm among devs using UE5... If those devs didn't have any problem working with UE4 or other engines last gen but suddenly can't make their games look and perform decently in UE5, then in my opinion:
The funny thing about control was that it was only faster in photomode with nothing going on. As soon as they went into gameplay, xbox was regularly dropping below 30 fps.I feel like you're just grasping at straws, so I google "async likes more cu's" and nothing popped up.
Or maybe it's just simply because AMD raytracing units are 1 to 1 with number of CUs XSX has more (slower) 52 CUs vs PS5 less (faster) 36 CUs.
ray triangle intersection rate
PS5 - 4 x 36 x 2.23 = 321.12 Billion RTI/s
XSX - 4 x 52 x 1.825 = 379.6 Billion RTI/s 16% difference for XSX
In control that you mentioned " Xbox series X has 16% higher performance than PS5"
Has fuck all to do with async compute. Stop grasping at straws. Admit when you are wrong about something.
Control FPS drops were all fixed in a patch though.
Neither me, but whatever it was, it must have been serious enough to warrant it.
It wasn't even a game patch, a firmware update fixed it all according to DF.
Sigh...
I wonder if decisions about settings where made by different teams of people? Some people like sharpening filters and feels it's worth the perceived recovery in detail despite sharpening artifacts, other people hate it.
Not sure to understand, what do you mean by this?
No, I think you don't know the real situation.
This was something they saw in Metro. It had a 20% advantage in pixel counts when you were out and about just exploring. But the moment you started action sequences, the DRS would kick in and bring down the resolution to PS5 levels.
I am not agreeing on it being "a general rule of the generation". It can be a highly specific behaviour tied to a particular game or situation going both ways. How do you explain cases like real time cutscenes having higher performance on PS5 in some games without the input from the player then? Shouldn't this "purely GPU bound"? By the way you seem to be persisting in your wrong assumption that 18% higher theoretical TF advantage = 18% 'performance' advantage, that is far from being the case.