• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

(*)Let's Clear Up Some Misconceptions On PS5 & XSX Specs Shall We.....

Which system do YOU think holds the overall performance advantage?


  • Total voters
    275
  • Poll closed .
Aug 28, 2019
3,895
8,138
630
www.instagram.com


So we knew this would happen; both companies have revealed their specs, and the spin machines are in full force. Now, I'm by no means a tech expert, but I've tried researching as much into things as I can, if you go by a lot of my posts here. And I paid close attention to MS and Sony's reveals to spot any fudgings.

MS already tried this with the "25 TF" thing getting steam (granted it was more due to the way they explained it, but in general no, XSX doesn't have equivalent of 25 general-purpose TFs), but it seems Sony has created an environment where many are trying something similar with their SSD. Yes in raw measurement terms their SSD is over 2x faster, but people seem to think this will make up for other areas XSX has an advantage in, and that is mostly false. In some aspects it will help, but there are inherent limits to NAND technology and how it works, it is NOT a replacement for volatile RAM or compute horsepower! All the same, those things are not a replacement for non-volatile NAND storage so there's only so much XSX can do to close that given performance gap with PS5.

I'm gonna break down this stuff to the best of my ability and give my reasons why this should be VERY exciting for everyone. (Also when I refer to compute I mean game-orientated compute, not raw data compute. And I only speak FP32 figures here; however you can scale anything to Int 16, Int 8, Int 4 etc)

CPU: 3.6 GHz/3.8 GHz (no SMT) (locked) > up to 3.5 GHz (variable; GPU load could drop the clock down. Taking Cerny's 2% clock drop claim, CPU could dip as low as 3.43 GHz, but there's a possibility it could drop slightly lower if real-world flux results in such)

RAW GPU: 12.147 TF (locked) > up to 10.275 TF (variable; could reach 10.07 TF going by Cerny's comment but it could go lower than that in real-world performance depending on CPU and other I/O power load needs) = 1.872 TF differential (potentially 2.007 TF differential, possibly more depending on if GPU clock dips lower than 2% from max cap)

GPU CU count: 52 CUs > 36 CUs (XSX can perform bigger batches of unique compute calculations on data at any given time while PS5 is limited to smaller batches of unique compute calculations on data at any given time)

GPU Clock: 2.23 GHz > 1.825 GHz (Even if it drops to Cerny's implied 2.185 GHz, it still remains faster. Means PS5 can run through compute calculations up to 405 MHz faster than XSX's GPU, even if XSX can compute more calculations per cycle)

RAY-TRACING (forgot to post this before): 380 billion intersections > 321.441 billion intersections (XSX has larger overall RT performance but it's wider spread out over more CUs, or 7.3 billion intersections per CU. PS5's is lower RT performance but spread out narrower over lesser CUs, or 8.9 billion intersections per CU. XSX's favors wide & slow, PS5's favors narrow & fast)

VRAM: 10 GB 560 GB/s GDDR6 ~> 14 GB - 15.5 GB (see NX Gamer video embedded below) 448 GB/s GDDR6 (in terms of raw numbers that's 5.6 trillion bytes of data per second vs 6.272 trillion bytes of data per second, but the XSX can refresh on its pool over 100 GB/s faster than the PS5 can. AKA PS5 = narrow & fast, XSX = wide and slow)(also takes into consideration PS4 will likely partition at least 2 GB of its RAM for the OS and related system features like multi Quick Resume, similar to XSX)

"GP (general purpose)" RAM: 3.5 GB 336 GB/s GDDR6 ~< 14 GB - 15.5 GB (see NX Gamer video embedded below) 448 GB/s GDDR6 (PS5's bandwidth is faster here, but MS have added some ECC features to their GDDR6 IIRC (something to that effect was mentioned on Monday) and unknown if PS5 has these customizations. Also PS5's 14 GB of usable RAM will be shared between graphics and non-graphics loads, aka 3.5 GB for non-graphics game code is not guaranteed)

OS RAM: 2.5 GB 336 GB/s GDDR6 ~= 500 MB - 2 GB (see NX Gamer video embedded below) 448 GB/s GDDR6 (XSX takes 'wide and slow' approach while PS5 takes 'narrow and fast'. XSX's can hold more unique data at any given time but operates on it over 100 GB/s slower, PS5's holds less unique data at any given time but can operate on it over 100 GB/s faster)

AUDIO: PS5 ~> XSX (This one we don't actually know too much on regarding XSX or even PS5, but for now I'd probably give PS5 the edge. The question however is if its audio engine has its own pool of RAM; it very likely doesn't, meaning it's sharing from the 14 GB the system probably has set aside for games)

SSD: 5.5 GB/s > 2.4 GB/s (This is the clearest advantage PS5 has over XSX. Its drive is over 2x faster on both raw and compressed data. It also seems to have more dedicated decompression ASIC hardware built into the flash memory controller, and might have more granularity in the number of privilege levels and memory channels. While open-market 3rd-party drives have to be approved by Sony for 3rd parties (versus Microsoft going with a proprietary format currently only partnered with Seagate), BOTH systems will have expansion bays for additional fast storage, as well as a slower USB-style port for external drives where PS5/XSX games can be stored but not played from (only previous-gen games will be playable from storage devices connected to the USB ports)

(*EDIT: So uhm, there might potentially be some confusion on the PS5 side of things here. Eurogamer says PS5's expandable storage solution is with (essentially) external drives primarily aimed with storage in mind, similar to XSX's approach with using external HDDs through one of the USB ports (where pre-XSX games can run off of, but not XSX games).

HOWEVER, it seems (again according to Eurogamer's report) that in order to expand PS5's internal storage while having performance similar to the internal drives, you'll have to replace the 825 GB internal drive with a compatible 7 GB/s PCIe 4.0-complaint, Sony-approved 3rd-party off-the-shelf drive.* )

So in reality, we're looking at 1x custom 5.5 GB/s drive in PS5 and 2x 2.4 GB/s drives (4.8 GB/s total) drives for XSX. The only question around XSX's setup is if both drive bays can be read from simultaneously. If so, while games could only specifically target a single SSD's worth of performance at finer low-level access, the XSX OS could provide boosted performance for a game if an expansion drive is detected in the back card port. Combined performance would still be slower than PS5's replaceable internal custom drive, but the gap would be much smaller.

Also worth keeping in mind that since both systems are memory-mapping giant portions of their SSDs as v-cache for the GPUs, this influences the GPU clock speed rates. AKA the GPUs will not just be reading data from the GDDR6 RAM)

--------

So in the end, I think that sums up the unique strengths and weaknesses with each approach. We really aren't looking at a situation where one system has a flush advantage over the other in every single category, and the divergent approaches they've taken is actually really refreshing. Most of us thought we'd be looking at twin boxes this gen with the only difference being OS features and 1st party content, but this is actually a lot more in spirit to 7th-gen and earlier generations.

For those of us who get a kick out of reading up on the esoteric designs of consoles past, PS5 and XSX almost feel like a return to that...within reason. They bring the best of a homogenized tech space we have today, but have very clear design philosophies that implement their tech in pretty different ways that feel close spiritually to the heyday of exotic console architectures. I'm talking those SNES/MegaDrive, PS1/Saturn/N64, PS2/DC/GC/Xbox days even!

Sure it's not QUITE like it was then, but any divergences MS and Sony could've taken to offer unique approaches to next-gen while still meeting their respective performance targets, in the modern era, is well and fine by me. And going by what devs have been saying, it's fine by them, too. Of course, you will have devs who prefer the PS5's approach, and you will have devs who prefer the XSX's approach, and that is always reflective of a mix of skill + personal taste. But it's going to be really fun to see what unique game design philosophies emerge from these two systems, and for that I say everyone wins here!

BONUS!!!


NX Gamer just put out this excellent video analyzing the differences between the two systems. Really, really top-class stuff. Dude is very fair and has some surprising perspectives on the systems and clarifies a lot of misconceptions on both systems right now. Even made me reconsider the GPU clock thing; seems like the maximum dip in PS5 GPU really will be only around 2% or so as Cerny said.

He also puts the SSD in better perspective and that might help folks contextualize why developers seem very excited for it. He also mentions that the split pool in XSX might potentially be a small bottleneck, but nothing that will cause any big problems. He's very excited about the differences in the two systems and what that'll mean for developers.

Easily one of the best early analysis videos on comparing the two systems, strongly suggest you all give it a watch!
 
Last edited:
x1

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
12,398
7,191
1,365
Look, let me spell out something that should be extremely obvious:

Instances where both CPU and GPU are under maximum load simultaneously are extremely rare. Especially for sustained periods., because that's not how utilization works as it requires zero stalling and bottlenecking. Its hugely stressful on memory and bus utilization even in short bursts because as Cerny points out in his talk. its not easy to be that optimal all the time.
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
11,922
2,908
1,685
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
The difference in raw teraflop power was ~40% in PS4 vs XBO, and now is ~14%. But now there are more extra stuff in consoles to save work from there and more custom chips to help in both cases, and the console with lower teraflops has other things like GPU frequency, I/O speed and compression, and a SSD so fast that may change the usage of disk drives and cool inmersive stuff like that haptic rumble or the state of the art 3D audio.

So I think results will be even more tied than they were in last gen and if most players didn't care ore weren't able to spot the difference between versions, this time will be even more the case. I think we'll see less differences in the game comparisions (will be easier for devs to focus on minimal common denominator as they usually do) and that this time we won't see a console getting consistently better results in the comparisions: they mostly will get same performance, and sometimes we'll see one with a slight advantage and sometimes we'll see the other one with slight advantage.
 
Last edited:

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,499
8,120
885
23
Earth
It’s very clear that the XSX has the edge, but the PS5 has an innovative design that lets it punch above its weight in terms of the pure amount on silicon in the APU, and they have invested in a SSD that should let devs do some super interesting things. XSX is stronger, but both are well designed. The only thing to be disappointed about is if PS5 really lacks PS1/2 BC. Buts that’s more of a software side thing these days
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,005
2,860
1,695
Look, let me spell out something that should be extremely obvious:

Instances where both CPU and GPU are under maximum load simultaneously are extremely rare. Especially for sustained periods., because that's not how utilization works as it requires zero stalling and bottlenecking. Its hugely stressful on memory and bus utilization even in short bursts because as Cerny points out in his talk. its not easy to be that optimal all the time.
I could swore he said things like heavy 256avx and other taxing work loads also set it off not maxing all 8 cores.
 

icerock

Member
Jan 10, 2020
532
4,840
435
Very eloquently put. But, I don't agree with real world asterisks which you put in there. If you take Cernys word at face value, the entire APU is designed around a power equilibrium. So, maximum power consumption both GPU and CPU can draw is locked, its not dependent on what other hardware is consuming. 2% downclock ensures that equilibrium is maintained, that's why they arrived at that figure. If there were other 'real world' scenarios where it was downclocking further to maintain the power consumption, they would've mentioned a different figure. I prefer to give benefit of doubt to man who designed the machine than work theories of my own.

I just think console warriors are too defensive in general, pointing even slightest bit of flaw in their preferred piece of hardware doesn't go down well. Sony might have designed a machine to eliminate as many bottlenecks as possible but that doesn't mean performance wise it can match up to a superior spec machine in Series X. You can have cutting-edge tech to stream data so quick, but it requires GPU to render the damn thing. PS5 will eventually hit that maximum capacity much earlier than Series X, which so many people still cannot grasp. SSD can't cover up for all these shortcomings.

Are you referring to load times?

Being a first party title won’t give the PS5 more teraflops of power

PS5 superior SSD speed won't be utilized by any 3rd party devs, they'll design their game around slowest SSD spec of Lockhart. So, Series X will play all multi-plats at a slightly superior visual fidelity than PS5.

1st party is where PS5 will shine, they don't have to design their game around a lower spec machine aka Lockhart equivalent.
 

Marlenus

Member
Jul 29, 2013
1,857
717
590
UK
It's a more balanced system. Less bottlenecks.
It will have a much better 1st party titles.
I see you like analogies: NV TFLOPS are smaller, yet performance is better in PC space.

It is not more balanced. That is just nonsense.

Turing Vs Navi are pretty close flop Vs flop if the supporting functional units are in similar ratios. ComputerBase did some testing at fixed GPU and memory clock speeds and it was a tie for perf/flop.
 

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
892
2,121
350
What we need is for someone to run tests with similar PC GPUs, comparing ones with more CUs and lower clocks to one's with less CUs but higher clocks, ideally keeping the same ratio of TFlops as that present in Series X and PS5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Filippos
Mar 5, 2020
577
915
365
www.otakugamers.uk
The Xbox Series X is more powerful,
The Playstation 5 is more interesting.

As someone who enjoyed reading up on the bespoke hardware of past generations, the Ps5 is more interesting for me given some details are still to come. The Xbox is obviously more powerful, but seems to be a case of 'what you see is what you get' and a known quantity now.
 

Gavin Stevens

Formerly 'o'dium'
Oct 24, 2017
4,839
11,233
810
Uk
www.overdose-game.com
Very eloquently put. But, I don't agree with real world asterisks which you put in there. If you take Cernys word at face value, the entire APU is designed around a power equilibrium. So, maximum power consumption both GPU and CPU can draw is locked, its not dependent on what other hardware is consuming. 2% downclock ensures that equilibrium is maintained, that's why they arrived at that figure. If there were other 'real world' scenarios where it was downclocking further to maintain the power consumption, they would've mentioned a different figure. I prefer to give benefit of doubt to man who designed the machine than work theories of my own.

I just think console warriors are too defensive in general, pointing even slightest bit of flaw in their preferred piece of hardware doesn't go down well. Sony might have designed a machine to eliminate as many bottlenecks as possible but that doesn't mean performance wise it can match up to a superior spec machine in Series X. You can have cutting-edge tech to stream data so quick, but it requires GPU to render the damn thing. PS5 will eventually hit that maximum capacity much earlier than Series X, which so many people still cannot grasp. SSD can't cover up for all these shortcomings.



PS5 superior SSD speed won't be utilized by any 3rd party devs, they'll design their game around slowest SSD spec of Lockhart. So, Series X will play all multi-plats at a slightly superior visual fidelity than PS5.

1st party is where PS5 will shine, they don't have to design their game around a lower spec machine aka Lockhart equivalent.

I agree. Especially the bolded part. It’s quite clear we will likely look at a situation where multiplats play much better on Xbox, and while Xbox will do some great things, Sony’s first party will be able to push some crazy experiences that the SX simply cannot, but still may not push the graphical fidelity as high.

Interesting times ahead.
 

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
13,477
65,970
945
35
Salalah, Oman
XSX is generally more powerful. But when Booty talks, you listen:



That will be VERY decisive, and should hinder 3rd party next gen games for 2 years.

So, it should be less than 5-7fps margin for XSX (if not locked at 60fps) and PS5 will load maps and assets much faster.

By the time we see true XSX games, it's already time for mid-gen refreshes. Can see Sony doing the butterfly technique again, 36+36= 72CU, 20-21 TF.
 
Aug 28, 2019
3,895
8,138
630
www.instagram.com
The difference in raw teraflop power was ~40% in PS4 vs XBO, and now is ~14%. But now there are more extra stuff in consoles to save work from there and more custom chips to help in both cases, and the console with lower teraflops has other things like GPU frequency, I/O speed and compression, and a SSD so fast that may change the usage of disk drives and cool inmersive stuff like that haptic rumble or the state of the art 3D audio.

So I think results will be even more tied than they were in last gen and if most players didn't care ore weren't able to spot the difference between versions, this time will be even more the case. I think we'll see less differences in the game comparisions (will be easier for devs to focus on minimal common denominator as they usually do) and that this time we won't see a console getting consistently better results in the comparisions: they mostly will get same performance, and sometimes we'll see one with a slight advantage and sometimes we'll see the other one with slight advantage.

See, this is kind of something I don't really gel with. These percentage estimates are off. If you take the 1.84 TF of the PS4 and the 1.23 TF of the original XBO, the difference is actually closer to 33%, not 40%. And for PS5 and XSX (using PS5 max clock), the difference is closer to 18%, not 15% (and if you take Cerny's 2% drop quote into account, closer to 20%). You can figure all of this for yourself if you want to make sure I did the math right.

The other things you mention are very important but I tried putting into perspective HOW they will very much play out in practice in the OP. Essentially, it is not straightforward advantage for either system. In general XSX favors wide & slow (more unique data per cycle but slower refresh) while PS5 favors narrow & fast (less unique data per cycle but faster refresh). And that is VERY much general, because there are a lot of instances where PS5 is wide & slow and XSX is narrow & fast, as well.

SSD speed differentials are very notable but people also need to know how NAND actually operates. NAND reads per page and writes per block, and has generally poor random read performance compared to sequential read and write speeds. This means NAND is not byte-addressable on reads, bit-addressable on modifies, and byte-addressable on writes the way the GDDR6 memory in both systems is. Also worth mentioning is that raw and even compressed bandwidth of NAND is nothing compared to the 336 GB/ 448 GB/ 560 GB memory bandwidth of the GDDR6 memory in both systems.

A lot of people are misinformed on how these SSDs function; the memory-mapping for v-cache will mainly be beneficial for lower-priority textures and effects that aren't in immediate proximity to the player in a frame and/or are expected to be static textures/graphics data (it won't need to be modified frequently). It may also be useful for audio data, like speech lines in a JRPG, or other sound effects, as another example. However it doesn't actually supplant the purpose of more or faster GDDR6 (or other high-speed high-bandwidth volatile memory like HBM), either.

Actually here's a great way to picture it: you can think of both PS5 and XSX's SSDs functioning like the SEGA Saturn's VDP2 chip. That was the chip that gave a near-infinite 2D texture background plane effect for titles, with full scaling and rotation as well. We can say that PS5 has the better "VDP2" chip, since theirs is faster and arguably has more bandwidth (speed and bandwidth are NOT the same thing). BUT, the VDP2 chip had a VERY specific function and did NOT make up for 3D polygonal features and effects the Saturn's VDP1 lacked compared to, say, the PS1's GTE.

That's one way to really look at this, but it's more to point out the purpose and differences of the SSDs, and how they fit in the rest of the system design.

No. That needs special RAID-0 setup. And essentially make the second disk non-removable.

Ah, well I'll stand corrected if that turns out to be the case. But I'm only speaking in terms of if the OS handles that functionality with the expansion card itself, not the games targeting it directly. Which wouldn't be possible because devs could not count on everyone having an expansion card.

But conceptually it should be possible without needing the card to be permanently placed in the system; if the user is expecting to keep it there fore a while the OS can let them lock it to the system for a while and it can set up a profile to utilize both the internal and optional storage in tandem. When the user wants to remove the drive the system can simply disassociate the other drive's profile and the performance boosts the OS managed with it there are nullified. It should also be able to detect if the card is removed and adjust the setup accordingly.

This honestly shouldn't be too hard the only question would be if the system's flash memory controller has the bandwidth needed to handle both at once. IIRC people sniffed out a 3.5 GB/s controller that might be XSX's controller; if MS could set up such an approach you'd get reduced speed on both drives simultaneously (1.75 GB/s per drive) but overall would get close to 3.5 GB/s across both (it wouldn't ACTUALLY be 3.5 GB/s due to overhead but could be somewhere about 3 GB/s; PCIe 4.0 overhead costs are significantly reduced compared to previous implementations).

Very eloquently put. But, I don't agree with real world asterisks which you put in there. If you take Cernys word at face value, the entire APU is designed around a power equilibrium. So, maximum power consumption both GPU and CPU can draw is locked, its not dependent on what other hardware is consuming. 2% downclock ensures that equilibrium is maintained, that's why they arrived at that figure. If there were other 'real world' scenarios where it was downclocking further to maintain the power consumption, they would've mentioned a different figure. I prefer to give benefit of doubt to man who designed the machine than work theories of my own.

Yeah, that's a fair point. I threw it out there as a speculation but didn't bother to calculate the numbers and post them for that very reason. Don't want people to think I'm trying to argue any FUD in that regard, I trust Sony's stabilized their cooling for the task.

I agree. Especially the bolded part. It’s quite clear we will likely look at a situation where multiplats play much better on Xbox, and while Xbox will do some great things, Sony’s first party will be able to push some crazy experiences that the SX simply cannot, but still may not push the graphical fidelity as high.

Interesting times ahead.

It really is the most exciting part; I thought these systems were gonna be so similar it'd be pretty boring in terms of talking specs. Even complained about that a few times in other threads xD.

But what we got instead are two very capable systems with some surprisingly divergent design philosophies even if they're using a ton of the same tech. I almost get SNES/MegaDrive vibes, even if the differences don't end up that divergent xD
 
Last edited:

Vawn

Banned
Feb 20, 2018
9,357
19,643
810
Xbox SX does in most regards. PS5 might have quicker loads, installs, etc. The question is whether any difference will even be noticable.

I bet it will be extremely difficult to differentiate between performance and the ultimate decision will be which has the games you want to play.
 

Connxtion

Member
May 30, 2014
188
162
415
Scotland
Don’t forget the Directstorage API the XSX uses for access to the SSD.

it’s basically what the PS5 is doing so it can use the SSD like ram.

All the stuff about the Xbox SSD is in the DF article. Shocked most folk don’t seem to realise that the XSX has stuff to do the same stuff the PS5 does.
 
Feb 15, 2013
8,900
7,583
855
London
I agree. Especially the bolded part. It’s quite clear we will likely look at a situation where multiplats play much better on Xbox, and while Xbox will do some great things, Sony’s first party will be able to push some crazy experiences that the SX simply cannot, but still may not push the graphical fidelity as high.

Interesting times ahead.

Not a chance with 'much better'. PS5 may even have the performance advantage as verified dev BGs told us.
 
Aug 28, 2019
3,895
8,138
630
www.instagram.com
Look, let me spell out something that should be extremely obvious:

Instances where both CPU and GPU are under maximum load simultaneously are extremely rare. Especially for sustained periods., because that's not how utilization works as it requires zero stalling and bottlenecking. Its hugely stressful on memory and bus utilization even in short bursts because as Cerny points out in his talk. its not easy to be that optimal all the time.

True but this goes both ways; not every PS5 game will need 10.275 TF worth of performance, either, or 100% CPU resources. So it's not like both systems will always perform at their respective peaks except for games that really demand it.

What I WILL say is that it seems it'll be easier for games on PS5 to enjoy boosted frames/graphics performance simply due to the clocks able to go fster if able, it's essentially a "free" boost. On XSX, however, software will have to be more cleverly (and perhaps manually) saturate the bus more directly. Therefore, may not be as many "easy" free boosts in performance for games that aren't outright pushing the specs, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Would just require a bit more work, the amount depending on how much of the lifting the OS does (or how much it will allow itself to relinquish for devs to do themselves if they desire).

Don’t forget the Directstorage API the XSX uses for access to the SSD.

it’s basically what the PS5 is doing so it can use the SSD like ram.

All the stuff about the Xbox SSD is in the DF article. Shocked most folk don’t seem to realise that the XSX has stuff to do the same stuff the PS5 does.

Ah true, I kept that in mind actually when talking about the SSDs. My bigger point tho was just to illustrate how the SSDs simply can't replace RAM or GPU compute. It's an entirely different technology and kind of like comparing apples to oranges.

But indeed, a lot of stuff PS5 is doing in terms of hardware optimizations, XSX is also doing. They have some different approaches here and there but the general features are largely the same. Somehow tho there's a growing narrative that one has designed a completely balanced and optimized platform and the other simply threw brute force at a solution xD.

XSX is generally more powerful. But when Booty talks, you listen:



That will be VERY decisive, and should hinder 3rd party next gen games for 2 years.

So, it should be less than 5-7fps margin for XSX (if not locked at 60fps) and PS5 will load maps and assets much faster.

By the time we see true XSX games, it's already time for mid-gen refreshes. Can see Sony doing the butterfly technique again, 36+36= 72CU, 20-21 TF.

First off, dat pic xD (also welcome back dude!)

Secondly, I think those are safe assumptions. Things like FPS favoring XSX, and load times for map chunks and assets favoring PS5, seem like logical conclusions.

However I disagree with the next-gen 1st party thing. Booty made the comment at E3 2019, so it's mainly been in effect for 2019 and 2020. By around mid-2021 we'll probably start seeing MS cease cross-gen support for older Xbox platforms, that depends on if they're even sticking to that idea, or if they were trying to misdirect expectations at the time with it. I guess we'll end up seeing once the systems launch xD.

And yeah it's pretty much a given Sony will likely go dual 36 CUs for PS5 Pro. Likely as a single GPU, but if the multi-GPU stuff gets ironed out by then I can see them doing GPU chiplets simply to maximize production numbers on a singular GPU chip into the APU that can go towards both base PS5 and the PS5 Pro.
 
Last edited:

POak

Neo Member
Mar 14, 2020
18
25
110
Very eloquently put. But, I don't agree with real world asterisks which you put in there. If you take Cernys word at face value, the entire APU is designed around a power equilibrium. So, maximum power consumption both GPU and CPU can draw is locked, its not dependent on what other hardware is consuming. 2% downclock ensures that equilibrium is maintained, that's why they arrived at that figure. If there were other 'real world' scenarios where it was downclocking further to maintain the power consumption, they would've mentioned a different figure. I prefer to give benefit of doubt to man who designed the machine than work theories of my own.

I just think console warriors are too defensive in general, pointing even slightest bit of flaw in their preferred piece of hardware doesn't go down well. Sony might have designed a machine to eliminate as many bottlenecks as possible but that doesn't mean performance wise it can match up to a superior spec machine in Series X. You can have cutting-edge tech to stream data so quick, but it requires GPU to render the damn thing. PS5 will eventually hit that maximum capacity much earlier than Series X, which so many people still cannot grasp. SSD can't cover up for all these shortcomings.



PS5 superior SSD speed won't be utilized by any 3rd party devs, they'll design their game around slowest SSD spec of Lockhart. So, Series X will play all multi-plats at a slightly superior visual fidelity than PS5.

1st party is where PS5 will shine, they don't have to design their game around a lower spec machine aka Lockhart equivalent.
Exactly! Basically, Xbox is way more future-proof than SONY's alternative, and it saddens me that, with the new generation of consoles yet to start, we can already expect a PS5 Pro.

Any game's development, bar first-party titles, will be made around the lowest common denominator, so I think that SONY's trump card - its SSD speed - will be moot, unless developers are willing to optimize their games to every single console.

All in all, I have NO IDEA as to why Jason Schreier and other developers were stating that PS5 was the more powerful of the two (three if you consider Lockhart) consoles. Like, I see no benefits of playing games on a PS5 other than its fantastic first-party offering, and faster load times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady
Feb 15, 2013
8,900
7,583
855
London
Exactly! Basically, Xbox is way more future-proof than SONY's alternative, and it saddens me that, with the new generation of consoles yet to start, we can already expect a PS5 Pro.

Any game's development, bar first-party titles, will be made around the lowest common denominator, so I think that SONY's trump card - its SSD speed - will be moot, unless developers are willing to optimize their games to every single console.

All in all, I have NO IDEA as to why Jason Schreier and other developers were stating that PS5 was the more powerful of the two (three if you consider Lockhart) consoles. Like, I see no benefits of playing games on a PS5 other than its fantastic first-party offering, and faster load times.

Bwaha keep believing that.

I hate Digital Foundry but lets see this big gap in performance when they do a 3rd party face off. I'm willing to bet the difference will be almost zero, as real world perf is a different thing to tflops numbers in isolation!
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
4,759
6,581
635
One thing i'm worried about is how long these machines are going to be tied to their lowest powered brothers, the og Xbox and PS4. MS seems particularly set on leaving no man behind.
They don't want too but PS5 will force their hand, since Sony is committed to clean cut gens. Current gen games will look and feel outdated once next gen exclusive games start making rounds