• 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.

Dusk Golem reiterates that the Xbox will be more powerful than the PS5 (Admitted to starting console wars, demodded)

StrongGuy

Member
It's crazy that 7 years later, Sony is once again $100 cheaper AND performing better.

I mean, holy shit. How did ms let that happen?

This time is almost worse, because their fans were utterly convinced by the numbers that MS would lead this time. But game after game they lose the performance war.

There may be no turning back from this. Can't wait for the flood of games to start rolling in. But there is definitely a breaking point that becomes too little too late.

Xbox division didn't have the funding to make custom parts.
 

assurdum

Banned
Listen... And I say this with all due respect...

The XBOX Series X is more powerful than the PS5. Across the specifications aka specs Microsoft entire intention was to be more powerful.

But that is only a fraction of the equation. In the bigger scheme of things especially in terms of what drives consumers to a console platform. I'd argue that the specs are a non factor to 90-95% of the market. There are other huge and very obvious factors to consider here. Not least where/what platform the devs spend their time optimizing and why...

But the specs are a done deal. Series X is a more powerful machine in terms of hardware. Arguing against that fact is meritless.
Yeah on the paper Xbox is more powerful. It will lands in better performance? Eh, it's a total different story. That's why the Crytek engineer called out MS to provide all that data specs without contest. But I'm more surprise to see so many insider or professional shocked now who never putted in the doubt how perfomance could change, because they trusted just to the raw number count without consider for a second thing like the ram/bandwidth splitted setup or others inside of the SOC of the hardware, if it was all well balanced or less and so on.
 
Last edited:
any economist will say you doesn’t need two consoles at home because well it is really a money you can use for others things like buying more games.
I was agreeing with you, but the economist thing is a bit off the wall. Maybe an accountant, but then again depending on how much money you make 500$ is not that much, of you have an accountant this person will not tell you how to spend your entertainment money.

That being said, I don't see why anybody would buy an Xbox, maybe your accountant will tell you that recurring fees add up in the long therm and avoiding them is the best way to save in the medium therm... But an Xbox fanboy accountant will tell you the games are free on that paid service (but not on psnow).
 

reinking

Gold Member
I believe what "hurt" MS when it currently comes to performance vs TF power narrative is MS focused on a multi-use solution because they were focused on cloud gaming and that is why the "less powerful" console is able to go blow to blow with them.
 

Handy Fake

Member
what do you mean? the 52 cu gpu is custom. there is no 52cu amd desktop gpu.

sony just out engineered them. better and cheaper cooling, better i/o, smaller and faster GPU, better and cheaper ssd.
Personally I think they had to engineer something that was cross compatible with a quite wide array of different architectures; from BC on their older gens, across older and newer PCs and streaming services.

Sony just concentrated on a single machine and I think it's showing.
 
what do you mean? the 52 cu gpu is custom. there is no 52cu amd desktop gpu.

sony just out engineered them. better and cheaper cooling, better i/o, smaller and faster GPU, better and cheaper ssd.

Yeah, I don't know what Microsoft was thinking with their design. They went out of their way to increase the CUs per shader array, but it didn't really give them an advantage other than increasing the TF number. Their memory split is bizarre, too.

It seems like MS wanted to win the "marketing" battle, but Sony wanted to win the "Actual performance" battle. I'm sure Sony went through every type of configuration possible for a given cost and settled on the approach they have. Seems Fast and Narrow is a good approach for RDNA2, and it's only until you start adding in the Infinity Engine architecture where higher CU counts (and higher shader array counts) will begin to scale the performance again.
 
Last edited:

DJ12

Member
Xbox division didn't have the funding to make custom parts.
But, but, but unlimited console warchest.....
And
DF and Alex aren’t Xbox shills..
Qudos to the people that don't listen and expect a single THEORTICAL measurement to be the only one that matters, disregarding all the bespoke technology one company has put in their console to make it much more efficient. To be honest after the first "surprise" DF should've looked harder into the hardware and not fixated on the Series X has more power and something must be wrong narrative.

PS5 can have less teraflops and be more performant.

TF's is only one measurement, and to be honest, it's relevance to gaming and graphic output mean's it shouldn't really be used as a measuring stick. Just look at the 1080ti and 2080, the RTX card has LOWER tf's and performs significantly better, the 3080 has significantly more TFs than the 6900XT, and which card wins there?

MS brought TFs to an efficiency fight.

Both are great console, and fans of either will be happy when they stop caring about DF and others have to say and just enjoy the analysis should any actually be provided instead of the trash opinion based drivel DF have been pushing out lately.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Yeah, I don't know what Microsoft was thinking with their design. They went out of their way to increase the CUs per shader array, but it didn't really give them an advantage other than increasing the TF number. Their memory split is bizarre, too.

It seems like MS wanted to win the "marketing" battle, but Sony wanted to win the "Actual performance" battle. I'm sure Sony went through every type of configuration possible for a given cost and settled on the approach they have. Seems Fast and Narrow is a good approach for RDNA2, and it's only until you start adding in the Infinity Engine architecture where higher CU counts (and higher shader array counts) will begin to scale the performance again.
PS5-specs-AMD-GPU-performance.jpg


Yep. I guess Mark Cerny wasn't just doing damage control when he talked about this. He must have ran some numbers with a bigger AMD RDNA gpu and found that the performance returns just weren't there. Especially when you could take the clocks way higher than average.

MS definitely went for marketing. Phil kept talking about owning the power crown and I think he interfered with the development of this gpu. AMD not launching a 40+ cu RDNA 1.0 gpu speaks volumes and every rdna 2.0 gpu they have seems to come with infinity cache which seems to be the thing needed to go beyond 40 CUs on rdna GPUs.
 

Krisprolls

Banned
And
DF and Alex aren’t Xbox shills..

Yes, I don't know why people still trust this guy after all that he wrote... And the fact he was on Xbox discord where sad no lifers made daily plans to spread anti PS5 FUDs on social networks and forums.

Now mind you, it's perfectly ok to be a fanboy (this guy is actually more in the PC Master Race bullshit now that Series X looks slightly underpowered compared to PS5), just don't try to make yourself look like a neutral guy and leave the comparison videos to others.

You have VGTech and NXGamer for more neutral analysis.
 
Last edited:

Lethal01

Member
Definitely a bad look. While he's been vetted and apparently has real connections, reality is I think he might be falling into the same trap many people do - blindly changing stories/arguments to defend/support ourselves and our choices. We all should know this all too well with console wars. How blindly and quickly people can change their stories and their arguments and contradict themselves all for the sake of defending their purchase or platform company of choice. It's really common and it happens in politics and really, anything that has people passionately defending something.

It's just, the thing is, when you have sources - and hey I have had some sources as well I use once in a blue moon on my YouTube channel, there is such an easy and simple way out of things typically. Such as "that's just what my source said". The problem is, he uses very... matter of fact statements, which should only be made by people who have direct knowledge.

Let's say I heard from someone at Nintendo Treehouse about a Switch Pro. Okay, cool - and if I decide to report ont hat or make a video, it would still come with all the caveats any other rumor/leak would of "hey it's just what I was told, but I don't work there so I can't say it's definitely happening". Unfortunately, most treat their sources, even if real, as gospel.

In this case, he seems to keep saying matter of fact things without adding the distance that should be granted of not being the direct source. So he finds himself in hot water, changing his story and maybe hoping his clout will let it slip through. Like so many others do when defending themselves.

The end result: If he has real sources, than he is just shooting himself in the foot for believability. If he doesn't, he's just exposing himself. Neither looks good for him.

He's already literally said he chooses to say dumb shit he knows isn't true purely because fanboy's annoyed him and he wants to get back at them.
A shame really. Could be such a nice source of knowledge if it didn't come with the attitude of a 12 year old.
 
Top Bottom