I would go as far as to say that if there is third-party parity in levels of detail on the screen, the PS5 is being held back. No different to if there is parity between the two in pixel resolution and iq, XsX is being under-utilised. Both have their strengths.Look, guys, the PS5's SSD configuration (12 ports) is way faster than Xbox Series X's poor 3 ports, there's no 2 ways around it, it's a massive difference, no matter how much you say "architecture differences, VELOCITY" and all that crap, the PS5 will have Its own efficiencies and architectural nuances that are even better than XSX in those regards, even developers are saying the same thing, that the PS5 is superior to XSX in many ways.
Just like XSX GPU is superior to the PS5, by a slight advantage.
We should all be happy that this generation will have the smallest differences ever between consoles, except the SSD, there will be a big difference and will show up in Sony's exclusive games.
PS5 may have faster load times, but you can't replace that weak cpu/gpu, less efficient "kraken" compression and slower RAM. XSX is still the more powerful console overall. Why people are still debating this is beyond me...
Because we haven’t seen any games yet (specifically multiplatform games) Worse yet is that even when we do they might be debatable if they choose to optimize for one platform over the other.PS5 may have faster load times, but you can't replace that weak cpu/gpu, less efficient "kraken" compression and slower RAM. XSX is still the more powerful console overall. Why people are still debating this is beyond me...
GPU is only about 18% faster and the CPU less than 3%. That's like saying RTX 2070 super is very weak in comparison to a RTX 2080 super.
where did you get that 80 from? Rumors have it it is 64 too.Rops:64 Rops:80
We’ll make sure to ask you what system is being held back when digital Foundry starts revealing the performance disparities.I would go as far as to say that if there is third-party parity in levels of detail on the screen, the PS5 is being held back. No different to if there is parity between the two in pixel resolution and iq, XsX is being under-utilised. Both have their strengths.
Lots of discussion on relating ssd to ram. The fact is next gen ssd is nothing more than an exponential increase of today’s engine streaming techniques. Also less reliance on workarounds.
Faster streaming simply means more ram available to the real-time visible scene because less buffering reserves are needed for things off screen. This translates to availability of higher quality assets, whether they be textures, variety, animation - anything that makes up the game. And yes, these assets need to be rendered within the capability of the cpu/GPU, and no even PS5 monster ssd is not fast enough to saturate the GPU, it’s just about those buffers vs visible scene ram ratio that’s it.
Gosh... Facepalm.but you can't replace that weak cpu/gpu, less efficient "kraken" compression and slower RAM.
It's beyond you, because you fucking don't understand anything what are you talking about.Why people are still debating this is beyond me...
Let's cut it short to facts:
Xbox Series X (11sec) vs Xbox One X (51sec): State of Decay 2. Difference is only 4.6x.
PS5 pre-devkit state (1 year ago, 0.8sec) vs PS4 Pro (8sec): Spider-man. Difference is 10x, with WIRED reporting 0.8 vs 15sec on another test (18x), questioning the 0.8sec being due to other stuff happening inside the system before loading. Plus it's reported to be a slower version. No need to take all that talk as anything, just pay attention to actual videos we can see:
SDDs on PC are bottlenecked because of decompression speed so that's why there's very little difference between slow and fast SDD.
If it ever takes longer then that to load, they will get hung out.I believe.
If it ever takes longer then that to load, they will get hung out.
More than 2x slower.Xbox ssd 30-50% slower
I’m not going to argue it, only time will tell.For Spider-man, yes.
Nice rounding,More than 2x slower.
I’m not going to argue it, only time will tell.
I dont think so because the difference is too big. MS engineer has told Dealergaming how fast XSX load sea of thieves level and it was only 3-5 seconds. Later on dealer has made comparison with his PC SDD evo 970 3.5GB/s and the same game needed 15 seconds. So XSX SDD despite being slower (2.5 vs 3.5 GB/s raw speed) load the same game 3x times faster. Only decompression bottleneck on PC can explain such big difference. And keep in mind, PS5 SDD will be even fasterOr maybe that's just the difference due to random read speeds vs sequential the producers provide, which never actually happens in games?
That’s because console are a closed box and have more customizations, has always been the case, maximizing performance .I dont think so because the difference is too big. MS engineer has told Dealergaming how fast XSX load sea of thieves level and it was only 3-5 seconds. Later on dealer has made comparison with his PC SDD evo 970 3.5GB/s and the same game needed 15 seconds. So XSX SDD despite being slower (2.5 vs 3.5 GB/s raw speed) load the same game 3x times faster. Only decompression bottleneck on PC can explain such big difference.
Part of our information is coming from www.techpowerup.com with unconfirmed numbers.PS5 - XBSX
Cores:2304 Cores:3328
TMUs:144 TMUs:208
Rops:64 Rops:80
Bus:256 Bit Bus:320 Bit
That's a substantial difference between the two platforms for those trying to push that the only difference is 18% and limited to CU count.
43% more cores.
44% more TMUs
25% more tops
25% more Mem Bus.
And what's also very important:
You can still do a lot more work with 2TF's RDNA2 than you can with 500GF's of GCN.
anyway, we will see as soon as the games arrive! But don't act like it's just a "18%" difference. also, keep in mind that PS5 clocks are variable
This is from Cerny’s talk , it shows the same speed as Series X ... 5 GBs, SSD on the next slide they talk about 5.5. at 7.37 in Cerny pres. What’s that about ??
MS has theirs up to 6 GBs.
This is the Bandwidth uncompressed.
This is from Cerny’s talk , it shows the same speed as Series X ... 5 GBs, SSD on the next slide they talk about 5.5. at 7.37 in Cerny pres. What’s that about ??
MS has theirs up to 6 GBs.
What we don’t know if one can sustain top speeds constantlyThis is the Bandwidth uncompressed.
For the Xbox the 5 GBs are the Bandwidth when compressed. Otherwise its around 2.5 GBs.
What we don’t know if one can sustain top speeds constantly
because after the hdd has loaded the game into ram, it's advantage ends. All this SSD, SSD, SSD shit, have you been living under a rock?
The proof will be in the pudding. We just have to wait and see what that pudding look like in real life, instead of on paper.
Or maybe that's just the difference due to random read speeds vs sequential the producers provide, which never actually happens in games?
PS5 is 10 times faster to load a tech demo designed to demonstrate fast loading.
Xbox SX is 4.6 times faster to load an entire game, not optimized for SSD.
I know which is more impressive.
PS5 is 10 times faster to load a tech demo designed to demonstrate fast loading.
Xbox SX is 4.6 times faster to load an entire game, not optimized for SSD.
I know which is more impressive.
Both actually show that neither 4800% nor 9000% more bandwidth vs HDD doesn't scale linearly with loading times reduction.
But I thought the PS5 had no bottlenecks!?
The "at least" is uncompressed which is why it is an 'at least' value I believe. MS is an 'up to' value with compression.
This is from Cerny’s talk , it shows the same speed as Series X ... 5 GBs, SSD on the next slide they talk about 5.5. at 7.37 in Cerny pres. What’s that about ??
MS has theirs up to 6 GBs.
Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, and Cerny is yet to show anything other than few PR slides.
Sure, there are limiting factors, but it also depends on how the data is streamed. Cerny's idea is to stream data as the player is turning. There's only one console who can stream data that fast and there will be limiting factors based on pure speeds. This is also not factoring in their I/O setup which they went in to great lengths to stop any soft of bottlenecks.
But what if they're able to use more memory as NX Gamer suggested? Xbox using a split memory could become a factor as the generation goes on.
But the gap was bigger... XSX doesn't have the same headroom its advantage will be much less apparent than PS4/XB1 and that's before factoring diminishing returns from resolutions in the region of 4K, you can't possibly expect the same difference in output. Dismissing percentages to focus on flops differences between generations (500GF & 2TF) is meaningless without taking into account proportions
When i said parity i meant everything from visuals to physics, particle effects etc. All it would take to produce the same results (visual and compute oriented) is to run at 17-21% lower resolution
Asynchronous compute techniques will also benefit PS5 though... The best case scenario for XSX with asynchronous compute is it'll reach the same level of GPU utilization as PS5 which is again a 21% gap at best. Running at 21% lower resolution would ensure it can reach settings parity
I don't know... Decompression time is dependent on the amount of compression and the file size, all other things being equal. The XSX version has not been upgraded compared to the original Xbox One version, right? So, even though it might be a decompression bottleneck, if the assets like textures for example are a higher resolution on the PC compared to the console version, it will naturally take longer to compress/decompress, and will therefore load slower, independent of the SSD speeds. I don't know how the assets compare in reality. I'm just pointing this out.I dont think so because the difference is too big. MS engineer has told Dealergaming how fast XSX load sea of thieves level and it was only 3-5 seconds. Later on dealer has made comparison with his PC SDD evo 970 3.5GB/s and the same game needed 15 seconds. So XSX SDD despite being slower (2.5 vs 3.5 GB/s raw speed) load the same game 3x times faster. Only decompression bottleneck on PC can explain such big difference. And keep in mind, PS5 SDD will be even faster
These are mere assumptions. We don't have an established, real-world proof of what speeds are required to stream in data to the player as they are turning, without resulting in texture pop-in or immersion-breaking. Many are assuming 5.5 GB/s or more when that may or may not be the case.
NX Gamer's suggestion on the memory was in reference to compacting OS data to the SSD when not needed at runtime. However, you CAN'T compact all OS data, like the kernel, this way, otherwise the system will be unstable and crash. A good deal of OS data has to be resident in main RAM at all times because the system components need that data as quickly as possible (not to mention, games will be using system services that therefore need to be in RAM). As well, they need a level of granularity and alterability that the NAND modules on the SSD won't provide, and a way of that data being sent which PCIe cannot provide.
The idea of offloading chunks of the OS off to the SSD works better if talking about the product of some files and services that have had to run, and won't be expected to run again for a while. For example you could just package all of the relevant services into some compressed file and put it at a specified location on the SSD, then load it again and decompress into main memory when it's needed.
But even THAT doesn't have a ton of realistic use-cases; for starters when OSes install programs they tend to group all of the program's registries, .dll (using Windows as reference here, but this is something all OSes tend to do), image files etc. very close to each other, in the same relevant location, contained to folders and structured in a hierarchy. They aren't installing Program A's image files in Program Z's folders, for example. This kind of hierarchy is done specifically to ensure faster loading of program data and to prevent errors in inability to find key files for the program at expected places, lest the program need to search for the file (and this depends on if it knows where to search as contingencies, and IF it can even do this, since said type of thing would be more at the OS level and would be ran through a program-agnostic OS utility, usually when the program is not running).
Even taking what you've said, the XSX has a GPU compute advantage with all things considered equal. You even admit that yourself when saying PS5 will be capable of those same features (it will), but to match them it will have to lower resolution
I always acknowledged the XSX comes on top, what i said is the PS5 can replicate the exact same games (visually and compute) on a 17-21% lower resolution. This 21% difference (at best) will be much less noticeable than the differences between PS4/XB1But at the end of the day the XSX will hold the advantage in that department due to having a bigger GPU
I think this argument is flawed because PS5 is RDNA2 so the proportions remain the same and 17-21% already accounts for ideal use of resources which wont always be the case so the in game advantage could be even lower.What I'm more interested in is seeing the efficiency gains in both developer programming techniques targeted at GPGPU programming/compute and the leaps in algorithms, scripts, coding techniques, capability etc. of logic centered around on GPGPU asynchronous compute. You will be able to get a lot more out of, say, 300 GFs worth the coming gen then we got with the equivalent amount last gen, due to more dev familiarity, much better engine scalability (and fragmentation of engine components for asynchronous scaling), better API tools and features targeting such capabilities, and efficiency gains in RDNA2 architecture.
This is patently wrong, neither console can go over its theoretical peak, that is the best case scenario. Both consoles share the same arch, Asynchronous compute will benefit PS5 all the sameyou will most likely get a good deal more than just 17 - 21%
I dont think a 1.21X advantage at best is similar to at all to a 2.29X advantage. More will have to be sacrificed if a game fully exploits itEssentially, it's similar an advantage to what the the PS5's SSD has over the XSX's SSD.
Cerny gave figures though so its not just assumptions, in the half second it takes to turn they can load 4GB of compressed data which is apropiate for next gen assets quality.These are mere assumptions. We don't have an established, real-world proof of what speeds are required to stream in data to the player as they are turning,
The PS5 will be able to load up worse looking games faster than Xbox.
But you forget clock-speeds affect the equationPS5 - XBSX
Cores:2304 Cores:3328
TMUs:144 TMUs:208
Rops:64 Rops:80
Bus:256 Bit Bus:320 Bit
That's a substantial difference between the two platforms for those trying to push that the only difference is 18% and limited to CU count.
43% more cores.
44% more TMUs
25% more tops
25% more Mem Bus.
PS5 is RDNA2 too though.... So 2TF will translate to 21% higher resolution at bestYou can still do a lot more work with 2TF's RDNA2 than you can with 500GF's of GCN.
Why are ps5 fans arguing about performance? Is it not more rational to focus on other aspects of the value of a console? Even if they are right and the xsx is “only” 10% more powerful in RDNA2 terms, why go on for pages worth of threads about it? That’s like saying you can only knock my teeth out but not make me unconscious in a fight. If I don’t smile, nobody will know.
So now Cerny is just assuming how it will work?
You guys are so quick to discredit everything. It's getting ridiculous at this point.
He referenced caching idle RAM parts. Every bit of freed RAM would have real world performance. It's purely speculating how freeing up more memory is possible, but we still don't know how it's actually set up. Giving devs extra room to work with is always beneficial no matter what.
There's a clear trend with members who support XboxGAF on here. When XB has an advantage on paper, it's always made clear, but when it's for the PS5, it's always wait and see because the advantages may be nullified.
I always acknowledged the XSX comes on top, what i said is the PS5 can replicate the exact same games (visually and compute) on a 17-21% lower resolution. This 21% difference (at best) will be much less noticeable than the differences between PS4/XB1
I think this argument is flawed because PS5 is RDNA2 so the proportions remain the same and 17-21% already accounts for ideal use of resources which wont always be the case so the in game advantage could be even lower.
This is patently wrong, neither console can go over its theoretical peak, that is the best case scenario. Both consoles share the same arch, Asynchronous compute will benefit PS5 all the same
Even if a game went crazy with fine grained Asynchronous compute specifically designed to max the XSX GPU, the absolute best you can hope for is XSX reaches the same level of VALU utilization as PS5 which again would translate to 21% higher resolution at exact same settings (visual and compute)
I dont think a 1.21X advantage at best is similar to at all to a 2.29X advantage. More will have to be sacrificed if a game fully exploits it
That said, I dont expect 3rd parties to fully exploit PS5's SSD so differences will come down to loading, more/less apparent LOD transitions and pop in. Is this what you meant to similar advantage in practice due to devs targeting XSX SSD as the base?
Cerny is not the only engineer in the world. And nothing's being discredited; if we can question claims from Xbox people like Phil Spencer, we should be able to question claims from Mark Cerny. It's not my fault I've done enough of my own research into this stuff to cast a bit of doubt on certain things he claimed in his presentation (which mind, was as much for devs as it was a PR piece).
I know what he referenced, and addressed that. The point is that the use-cases for such a task are going to be limited because there are a lot of critical services to the OS that NEED to be in the main RAM, as well as the fact many games require presence of those same services and utilities.
He speculated, and I pontificated on that speculation. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with "picking a side" when it comes to choosing when to support paper specs or not, because I theorized a lot of things in terms of advantages PS5 can have over XSX shortly after Road to PS5, and quite a lot of those I still stand by.
However, it's not hard to acknowledge a majority of posters on the threads, mostly hardcore Sony ones, are caping very hard for PS5 and pecking away at XSX's advantages as much as possible. Sorry if I want to bring some balance back to next-gen discussions, maybe that has been banned and I didn't get the memo. But I'll ignore it regardless because I am genuinely interested in giving the systems their due where they are merited. And no, that doesn't mean playing along to fake narratives like "brute forcing" vs "optimization and elegance" or "narrow and fast" vs "wide and slow"; when you look at the systems deeper they both embody elements of all of these design philosophies at various levels.
And while you probably think otherwise since I'm being critical of some PS5 performance claims (and SSD claims which would mean I'm being critical of both systems in that department), I actually am a Sony fan as well and want the best out of PS5. But I don't need to have a desire of wanting the worst from XSX to do so.