Stiflers Mom
Banned
OP sounds like he needs to excuse the PS5's lack of raw power.
-
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.
Real Talk: Gaming Hardware Is About Maximizing Efficiency Not TFLOPs
- Thread starter Tqaulity
- Start date
Kagey K
Banned
Theoretically, you might have found the most efficient answer as to why this thread exists.
Thankfully, you didn’t have to brute force it.
Xplainin
Banned
As the graphical improvements come along, resolution on both consoles will dip below 4k, on a dynamic basis.
I could easily see alot of games being 1800p on XSX and 1600p on PS5, and I dont see anyone being able to pick the difference just by looking at them.
turtlepowa
Banned
Didn't read the wall of text, but i guess it's just another "9 is the new 12" thread.
majestix1988
Member
That is theoretically if the game is developed first on series X specs.....
What if a game is develop on PS5 first
Do you know what theoretically will happen?
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
They will leave it as is like they did in the PS2/OG Xbox gen or they will find ways to utilize the extra headroom like some games did in the same gen (SC: Chaos Theory)
That will be up to the dev.
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
I was expecting a hardcore technical thread based on size of the wall. Turns out it's a bit of a rant.
I would say op, there is clear advantage in picking base PS4 over one s and vice versa with enhanced consoles.
Games are mostly the same except 10 odd exclusives per platform.
Only example you mentioned makes sense is seeing killzone shadow fall for first time. I would say it's counterpart is horizon 2.
But xbox is yet to show its full hand.
I would say op, there is clear advantage in picking base PS4 over one s and vice versa with enhanced consoles.
Games are mostly the same except 10 odd exclusives per platform.
Only example you mentioned makes sense is seeing killzone shadow fall for first time. I would say it's counterpart is horizon 2.
But xbox is yet to show its full hand.
Last edited:
prinz_valium
Member
No, it is about both.
supernova8
Banned
Really it comes down to...
PS5 will only ever be more performant than Series X if developers totally change the way they make games in a way that means performance scales linearly with SSD speeds.
It's only going to be Sony first party that take advantage of the PS5's SSD 100% (because they don't need to worry about a slower SSD target from another system) but then on the flipside, Xbox first party can do things with the GPU raw power than Sony first party needs to make up for with SSD.
In other words, if we were approaching it from "game design won't really change thaaat much in that short a space of time" then in a vacuum where all talent and budgets are equal, Microsoft should have the better looking/visually impressive (IQ or framerate or a mix of the two).
But yeah all we have right is now a battle of "My dad's TV is bigger than your dad's TV" so kinda pointless to keep banging on about it.
PS5 will only ever be more performant than Series X if developers totally change the way they make games in a way that means performance scales linearly with SSD speeds.
It's only going to be Sony first party that take advantage of the PS5's SSD 100% (because they don't need to worry about a slower SSD target from another system) but then on the flipside, Xbox first party can do things with the GPU raw power than Sony first party needs to make up for with SSD.
In other words, if we were approaching it from "game design won't really change thaaat much in that short a space of time" then in a vacuum where all talent and budgets are equal, Microsoft should have the better looking/visually impressive (IQ or framerate or a mix of the two).
But yeah all we have right is now a battle of "My dad's TV is bigger than your dad's TV" so kinda pointless to keep banging on about it.
lepermessiah
Member
I see bigger number therefore better.
Seriously, cache scrubbers, greater I/O efficiency, large and fast data decompression and CU occupancy will make a demonstrable difference.
Series X will have some advantages no doubt, but I mostly see them coming down to output res and ray tracing, yet for sheer fidelity? I see Sony having the edge there, the amount of data it can stream with the major bottlenecks gone - on tap and on the fly - is crazy.
Seriously, cache scrubbers, greater I/O efficiency, large and fast data decompression and CU occupancy will make a demonstrable difference.
Series X will have some advantages no doubt, but I mostly see them coming down to output res and ray tracing, yet for sheer fidelity? I see Sony having the edge there, the amount of data it can stream with the major bottlenecks gone - on tap and on the fly - is crazy.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
That one thing where the PS5 might revel in (if done correctly) is moving your direction of view in an open world landscape.
A still image of that view will probably look better on the XSEX, though.
That's how I imagine it currently.
Kagey K
Banned
I love this bottleneck theory. Tell me about the bottlenecks the Series X has.
CuteFaceJay
Member
I thought it was about the RGB given just how much of that trash is slapped onto 'Gaming' hardware 
Lone Wolf
Member
Please show evidence that Xbox “brute forces” while PS5 “doesn’t follow the standard”. Xbox having more T Flops doesn’t mean “brute force”. Does the high PS5 clock indicate a brute force?
Xplainin
Banned
PS4 Pro was the lead console this gen, yet all Devs gave the game a bit extra to take advantage of the Xbox Ones extra HP.
I expect the same next gen.
SaucyJack
Member
teezzy
Banned
Yeah, but guys, guys, isn't being the weaker of the two consoles really being the stronger of the two consoles? I mean, arent Playstation in the more advantageous position to be in here?
Or maybe you're not so familiar with the tale of my buddy David and his friend Goliath?
Or maybe you're not so familiar with the tale of my buddy David and his friend Goliath?
Last edited:
SaucyJack
Member
That's kinda the point of his post.
Sure, the Series X is theoretically more powerful. That's undeniable. And you're right the difference in that processing power may actually not amount to much, native 4K vs 82% of 4K with checkerboarding or maybe 1 billion ray bounces vs 800 million. You're right we'll probably need DF to tell us.
But the question the OP poses is that you need to consider, in addition to the theoretical maximum performance, how easily can you extract that performance. Because no computer system runs at 100% performance continuously. So for sake of argument say that on average SeriesX gets 75% then that's 9.1 Tflops but if PS5 gets 90% then thats 9.2 (numbers plucked out my arse to make the point).
The OP's point is that efficiency is just as important as max power and can equalise things. This exact scenario was demonstrated in real life with both PS3 and Dreamcast which were outperformed by theoretically weaker systems.
Last edited:
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Oh yeah "more balanced" architecture. Move Engines, etc. We heard that all before, it never beats more powerful system.
I mean since when SSD can draw more pixel and do it faster, I hope you do realise, that you still need a GPU/CPU to draw something on the screen? Yes you can do probably cool trick with faster SSD (like we've seen in Ratchet and Clank), but otherwise, powerful GPU is still needed.
Last edited:
lepermessiah
Member
API overhead, no cache scrubbers and less priority lanes and custom controllers/co-processors with the I/O and SSD; decompression not handled completely by the custom features in the I/O freeing up the cpu.
lepermessiah
Member
I'm a simple FUD boi, I see a bigger number and I say thusly, "therefore better." I get rebutted with latency efficiencies, fast caches and greater CU occupancy complicating the story and yet I dip muh dicc in more sultry FUD; lather it up and cry out for saint Greenberg to hurry up with the baked beans that I ordered so that we may enjoy some warm ray traced flatulence.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Most people don’t even understand what they are seeing in spreadsheets are theoretical Tflops, which exist in a vacuum and will never be achieved in any given moment.
They just want to believe they bought the bigger number by the time the cash register spits out the receipt, so that when anyone asks why they can say “Because it’s the most powerful console in history BRO”
They just want to believe they bought the bigger number by the time the cash register spits out the receipt, so that when anyone asks why they can say “Because it’s the most powerful console in history BRO”
BigLee74
Member
Only when we see third party games side by side on both systems will the truth be revealed.
I would bet my wife that XSX wins the majority of these stand-offs, because it is traditionally the more powerful machine, and by a not inconsiderable distance.
If I lose, I get a new wife. Now that's a win-win scenario.
I would bet my wife that XSX wins the majority of these stand-offs, because it is traditionally the more powerful machine, and by a not inconsiderable distance.
If I lose, I get a new wife. Now that's a win-win scenario.
Xplainin
Banned
Its the same architecture. Its there for the Developers to take advantage of. If They choose not to, then we have lazy devs again lol.
Damigos
Member
Its been quite a while since i read a wall of text. And even more time since i enjoyed one so much.The discussion on which next gen console is more "powerful" has been heating up lately with most believing the Xbox Series X to be more powerful solely on higher spec counts in certain categories. Yet some folks counter that with how the custom hardware in PS5 will alleviate some of it's relative performance deficit and the difference will be minimal.
Before I proceed, let's really think about what we mean by "powerful" in this context because it could mean several different things. People tend to just toss that number around and say "system X has more TFLOPs so it's more powerful" or "System Y can run at higher framerates so it's more powerful". It is an important distinction in the context of the next generation consoles since both system have advantages in different areas.
For this discussion, I want to focus on actual game performance as the goal. Meaning which system can actually process the most data in the shortest amount of time. This will yield richer worlds at higher framerates. Thus, I am getting away from the theoretical and the TFLOPS and high level specs and focusing on which system ultimately runs games with same or higher details and higher framerates.
Now of course let me state the obvious: at this point, nobody really knows which system is more powerful between the Xbox Series X and PS5. Why? Because nobody has seen both running in final hardware form up close with the same game side by side to do a comparison. So I'm not here to declare either one as more "powerful" but just to check some folks on claiming one as superior solely based on numbers on paper or video streams.
Now many people in the know including developers have said this but let me reiterate: virtually no real world game running on any system does so in a manner which utilizes 100% of that system's capability at all times. As beautiful as TLOU2 or God of War looks on PS4, it is completely incorrect to think that either of those games are extracting the maximum 1.8 TFLOPs of GPU power for any sustained period. Yes, even if the clock speeds are fixed the actual utilization is based on the software running on it. For example, I can have a 5 Ghz CPU and a 2Ghz top of the line GPU running a simple 'for' loop or simple binary search algorithm. Does that mean that the system is running at it's theoretical 14 TFLOPs while running those few lines of code in that for loop simply because it's frequencies are locked? Theoretically, I could build a 15 PetaFlop machine (15000 TFLOPS) that is several orders of magnitude more powerful than anything on the market today. But if all it could play were Wii games by design, would that be a system which is utilizing it's full potential? Would that be next gen?
The point here is something that I've mentioned several times in this forum and I think a lot of people miss. When we really think about "next gen" gaming and transitioning to a new generation it really isn't the hardware that achieve those milestones. It's the actual software/games that truly define a new generation. We don't remember the specs of the N64 and how much more horsepower it had over the PS1, but we remember how seeing Super Mario 64 for the first time took our breath away. Try as we might, few people could look at Mario 64 in motion and translate that to exactly what hardware specs made that possible and how any theoretical advantages over competing hardware is showing up in the images being rendered before in front of them. The same could be said in moving to PS2: it was seeing GT3, Metal Gears Solid 2, and GTA III that defined what "next gen" really meant for that generation. It was not a GFLOP count or marketing buzz words like "Emotion Engine". We could go on with seeing Halo for the first time, Gears of War, Uncharted 2, and Killzone Shadowfall in later generations but you get my point. But here is the question: if you didn't know the hardware specs of the system running those games, would that change how you looked at that system? In other words, if Kojima today mentioned that MGS2 on PS2 only used <1 GFLOP of performance, would you now look at the PS2 as being "weaker" than the Dreamcast (capable of a theoretical 1.4 GFLOPS) even though it clearly looked better than anything on the Dreamcast at that time?
In thinking with that, we should realize that all of this talk about TFLOPs and theoretical numbers is really moot at the end of the day and misses the point. If we understand that maximum theoretical numbers are quite meaningless in determining actual real game performance and we agree that the real world performance or demonstrative power is actual more meaningful to evaluate, then we should be focusing on which system will actually be able to deliver it's theoretical performance best to the screen. There are indeed a tremendous number of system components and variables that all have to play nice and align perfectly for a system to operate at it's maximum capacity. In truth, it almost never happens with real workloads but the systems that are perceived to be the most "powerful" are generally the ones that have come closest to it's theoretical maximums…meaning the ones that are most efficient. That truly is the name of the game…trying to remove bottlenecks and create a balanced system that can work together effectively is the really the art of designing a game console ( or any system).
I recently got into a back and forth with someone who shouted to me: Xbox Series X is clearly more powerful because "The numbers don't lie". I literally LMAO and shouted back "LOL. YES THEY DO!" There are countless examples of this and many on this forum have posted PC GPU comparisons demonstrating the lower TFLOP GPU outperforming (in real games) a higher TFLOP GPU etc. But there are 2 examples I want to remind people of in particular:
- The first and more recent example of "numbers telling lies" is with the PS3 and Xbox 360 comparison. Now on paper, there is no denying that the PS3 had a much higher theoretical performance ceiling when you factored in the Cell, it's SPUs, along with the RSX GPU. Yet, most multiplatform games ran better on the Xbox 360. Why? Because the X360 was a much more balanced system that allowed developers to extract more performance with less effort than the PS3. In other words, it's "power" was much more accessible and the system more efficient. It's unified memory, symmetrical CPU design, and larger GPU with more parallel pipelines meant there was more power on tap in the X360. This was evident in many third party games throughout the generation but was very evident in the first few years (Anyone remember Madden 07 running at 60fps on X360 vs only 30fps on PS3). But other big titles such as Read Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed and many others ran at lower resolution and/or lower framerates on the PS3. One way to categorize this at a high level of abstraction (not literal figures, just an example to illustrate the point) is that 70% of the Xbox 360 was better than 40% of the PS3.
- For those old enough to remember, the second major example of this was with the original PS1 vs the Sega Saturn. People may not remember but on paper the Sega Saturn was superior to the PS1 in almost every respect! More polygon pushing power, higher pixel fillrate, more RAM and VRAM, better sprite processing, higher maximum resolution and more! Yet and still, the vast majority of 3rd party multiplatform games looked and ran better on the PS1. Games like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, and Wipeout are just some example where the Saturn version had poorer performance or was missing visual elements altogether. Why was this? Again, the Saturn was notoriously difficult to develop on and particularly to harness it's max potential. It featured dual CPU processors that was very tricky to code and in fact most developers literally ignored the 2nd processor altogether reducing the theoretical performance of the system by a tremendous amount. The PS1 on the other hand was well balanced and easy to get the desired level of performance out of it. For developers, you got much more out of it with less effort. Again, high level abstraction description: 60% of the PS1 was a lot better than 30% of the Saturn
So how does this relate to the current discussions around PS5 and Xbox Series X. Again let me reiterate, I'm not saying that one is more powerful than the other. In fact, by my comments in this thread I cannot say that until I've seen games running side by side on both. I believe like many that both will have their advantages in different areas. But we've been hearing and talking a lot recently about how so many developers seem to be singing the praises of the PS5 using big hyperbolic words like "masterpiece", "best ever", "dream machine" etc. The general excitement from the development community around the PS5 seems tangible and there isn't that same vibe at this time around the Series X (despite the higher spec numbers). Why is that?
We've heard things mentioned about the PS5 such as it's one of the easiest systems ever to develop on, it's very easy to get the power out of it, it removes many of the bottlenecks that have existed for many years, it frees developers from design constraints that they have been working around for decades etc. These kinds of statements all point to a system that will be extremely efficient and allow developers to harness more power for less time and effort. The fact that we haven't heard the same sorts of statements around Series X lead me to believe that the PS5 is in fact the more efficient between the two.
This means that you can get much closer (still not likely 100%) to that 10.28 TFLOPs of GPU power more consistently in actual workloads. This means that you can utilize much more of those 8 Zen 2 cores to doing meaningful work that that the player will see as opposed to "under the hood" tasks around data management, audio processing etc. This means that can actually achieve near 100% of the theoretical SSD read/write speeds without the traditional bottlenecks that have existed with HDDs in games for years. This means that you can get much more efficient use out of the physical RAM allotment because there is less wasteful or unnecessary assets taking up space.
The people that truly follow what I'm saying in this thread will realize that these things are much more exciting to both a developer and end user than some higher numbers on a spec sheet. These are the things that can make a meaningful difference in the quality of games we play in the next few years. These are things that will directly improve the quality of the software, which is really what delivers the next gen experience. This is absolutely cause to sing the praises of the PS5 as many developers have done.
Unfortunately for Cerny and the team at Sony, most of the real work and genius in the PS5 design is not easy to communicate to end users. It's also not something that end users can really appreciate since it's not something they can truly understand until they see the results. And that of course will not happen right away at launch in 2020. But ultimately, there is much to be excited about with the innovations Sony is bringing in the PS5 and the level of efficiency they could have possibly achieved.
So while I am not saying the PS5 is definitely more powerful (meaning more performance) than the Series X, I am saying that it is absolutely inaccurate to say that the Series X is more powerful solely based on TFLOPs ratings and other theoretical specs. In other words, despite what the numbers say it is entirely possible that we may see many cases where games are performing better (i.e. more complex scenes and/or higher framerates) on PS5. To use my analogy above: 85% of the PS5 maybe better than 60% of the Series X (for example). It wouldn't be the first time that the numbers did not tell the whole truth
I ve been saying the same thing when comparing console to pc gaming and i always use the car analogy : You have a bmw M3 with 440 PS and a van with 700 PS. The van can do more than the car and they both do the same lap times on the track. But the experience in the M3 is better because it was made to do only that (more effeciently, more smooth etc like you said).
Thank you for your hard work.
igivehugs2nakedwomen
Banned
You really should. Many of the people spreading misinformation about what a teraflop actually is and what it can and cannot do should read that "wall of text." After reading that perhaps some of you should look into thisI am not reading that wall of text
Compute Units x Shaders x Clock Speed = Floating Point Operations Per Second x 2
This is the equation used to determine the theoretical maximum performance of the GPU's of the PS5 and Series X. If you begin to look at teraflops as a mathematical equation that only focuses on the GPU you will slowly begin to realize that the 10.28TF and 12TF numbers only paint a partial picture of overall performance.
Last edited:
lepermessiah
Member
They're both rdna and zen architecture, yes, yet this is ignoring all of the custom components which will affect real world efficiency and performance.
SaucyJack
Member
No. It's not.
lepermessiah
Member
Assassins Creed Valhalla says hi.
bitbydeath
Member
From what’s been said PS5 will display greater detail and effects on screen due to the faster SSD.
Frame rates are more CPU oriented.
Xplainin
Banned
Its both RDNA 2. We arnt comparing Nvidia to AMD.
As far as GPU and CPU go, there's not much different other than the XSX is more powerful on the GPU and CPU.
bitbydeath
Member
Nah, as time goes on more power is unlocked as greater efficiencies are developed allowing for more of everything not less.
Xplainin
Banned
Who has said the PS5 will display greater detail than the XSX?
Its the GPU that puts the effects and details on the screen, not the SSD.
Xplainin
Banned
Not really. The PC space will drive graphics beyond what the consoles can do over time, and for the consoles to have those games, resolutions and effects will be reduced from the top PC cards.
It always happens.
bitbydeath
Member
Epic games.
It’s memory that allows for more things at once on screen. The SSD is functioning as that memory.
bitbydeath
Member
GenericUser
Member
The easiest way to tell which console is more powerful then the other is just comparing the multiplat games that'll be released for the new consoles this fall. No need for speculation, the facts will be here soon. I'll guess the PS5 will have the inferior multiplat versions next gen, the SEX just seems much more powerful on paper. Still getting a Playstation though.
Thats a lot of words for saying you will get a PS5.
Honestly I agree with your claim, but the problem is that the press always manipulates the narrative to favour whatever Sony is offering to avoid pissing off a large subset of their readers (99.9% if we are talking about Europe and South America. At the start of last gen 1.8 vs 1.3 TFLOPS was a gap as big as the Himalayas. And 900p was this blurry unplayable mess.
Now that Xbox has the power advantage is all about the SSD (Sonys, because MS SSD is made up by the press as it it were a 5400rpm wd green drive) it's all about I/O and efficiency now...
I am a PC only gamer so I have no horse on this race but I just hate how biased towards Sony the press can be. All those journalist mouths smell like Matt cernys dick.
Honestly I agree with your claim, but the problem is that the press always manipulates the narrative to favour whatever Sony is offering to avoid pissing off a large subset of their readers (99.9% if we are talking about Europe and South America. At the start of last gen 1.8 vs 1.3 TFLOPS was a gap as big as the Himalayas. And 900p was this blurry unplayable mess.
Now that Xbox has the power advantage is all about the SSD (Sonys, because MS SSD is made up by the press as it it were a 5400rpm wd green drive) it's all about I/O and efficiency now...
I am a PC only gamer so I have no horse on this race but I just hate how biased towards Sony the press can be. All those journalist mouths smell like Matt cernys dick.
PresetError
Neophyte
95% of the poeple doesn't care about console specs. They care about how much does it cost and what games can you play in it.
The reason why power seems less important for next gen is not that Sony changed the narrative because they have the lesser machine (they don't get to choose what's important for consumers). The truth is for the vast majority of console players the games already look good enough at 1080p and 30fps. More than that is nice, but not a game changer.
The reason why power seems less important for next gen is not that Sony changed the narrative because they have the lesser machine (they don't get to choose what's important for consumers). The truth is for the vast majority of console players the games already look good enough at 1080p and 30fps. More than that is nice, but not a game changer.
INC
Member
Exactly my point
It's a cross gen game tho, to be expected
Cant wait to see what xbx has to show soon
supernova8
Banned
Not that I know anything at all, but surely if you load all this stuff into memory super quick you still need a powerful GPU to render it.
It's like having two people who can eat donuts.
Person A can eat donuts really fast but has a small mouth.
Person B can eat larger donuts with sprinkly bits on but takes a little longer to eat them.
In other words, neither Person A nor Person B is necessarily 'better' but it depends on what you're trying to do.
Maybe that's a really shit analogy but the idea that the PS5 can miraculously solve the TF gap simply by having a better SSD sounds like marketing trash... I'll believe it after I've seen Xbox first party put out.
Great Hair
Banned
I am not reading that wall of text
Free Text to Speech Online with Realistic AI Voices
But it's really not like that is it?
PC comparisons are quite meaningless because these consoles, while they do have off the shelf parts, also have a lot of custom designed components which do not have an equivalent in PC realm. I've read a lot of stuff lately about the custom microchips Sony put in the PS5 which either remove/lower traditional bottlenecks, which (some of them) do not have a PC counterpart.
I'm not a hardware engineer, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems like there is a lot more under the hood than just hurdur slower CPU + weaker GPU + super fast SSD is no replacement for +2TF of GPU power.