KungFucius
King Snowflake
Why should I care how fast fancy text can be rendered? How does that map to framerate with or without ray tracing?
I dont think he has xsx ? So not much tearing i suppose
Keep lying to yourself .all the analysis suggests otherwise. If u bought a 2000$ TV to fix it that's on you . Give up the denial stage of grief and move to the next one. Soon bud you will get to acceptance haha. CheersZero tearing on the XSX. That's the beauty of true next gen.
XSX doesn't have any Next Gen games thoughZero tearing on the XSX. That's the beauty of true next gen.
Keep lying to yourself .all the analysis suggests otherwise. If u bought a 2000$ TV to fix it that's on you . Give up the denial stage of grief and move to the next one. Soon bud you will get to acceptance haha. Cheers
XSX doesn't have any Next Gen games though
You must be talking about a actual Next Gen EXCLUSIVE.It's a pity they didn't remake an 11 year old game, that's true.
The fact the PS5 is able to do any kind of graphical rendering at 4K better than a bloody 2080 is damned impressive.
It does however give an idea, when comparing console apples to PC oranges as to where the PS5's strengths lie, with the most likely real world benefit being with texture streaming and fillrate, two things we're already seeing evidence of with the unexpected results in comparisons between PS5 and XSX.
Dismissing these kind of benchmark tests out of hand is dumb and shortsighted. This relative speed and ability is being used in PS5 game development, even if it's not for this purpose, and seeing what a really good PC component is capable of in comparison adds real world context to that, even if we don't know what it's actually being used for.
Please don't engage with him and allow him to derail the threaD . I also stopped replying to him . Thanks .You must be talking about a actual Next Gen EXCLUSIVE.
You must be talking about a actual Next Gen EXCLUSIVE.
Steal? My friend with the 1st party Sony is offering + the crazy amazing controller + the ssd which on its own would be worth $300 + ps plus collection, $400 for the whole thing is not a steal. It is a ROBBERY!PS 5 really is a well optimized console, I'm continually impressed by it's performance for that price. 399 with a controller? That's a steal for this kind of performance.
Ya'll killing me here. I can't. I just can'tI dont think he has xsx ?
XSX doesn't have any Next Gen games though
They say that consoles achieve same pc resolutions/frames at low/mid graphics (for example less effects) when for example 2080/2080ti runs at high. Do we have any source for example on Valhalla on what settings consoles are running it ?Yep, the PS5 is running Ass Creed Valhalla equivalent to a 3070 (2080 Ti) at minimum. So much for Ampere graphics cards blowing the consoles out of the water, like some claimed.
I can't stand this much fanboyism in a topic no one understands lol.
Pixels ain't polygons.I still see many citing they don't understand what this means, it boils down to polygon fill rate/amount of object's on screen but in particular demonstrates the massive polygon budget specific to next gen consoles.
We will see games that exceed anything a 2080 offer's as standard due 1st part dev's focusing on one gaming ecosystem specifically for next gen Titles.
Unfortunately by the time these games release it is likely the 5080 will be at least a conversation piece to gamers.
You just have to see how different the PS4 Pro compared to the base PS4 in the first test to know that something not kosher with it, not to mention the PS4 Pro beating the Xbox One X in the second.This is the dumbest benchmark of performance I've ever seen. Can't believe how guilable console games are sometimes.
Pixel Fill Rate and Polygon Fill Rate are asynchronous with these benchmarks.Pixels ain't polygons.
This test is actually a very good comparison of GPU latency for a base task IMO, because this is the API overhead as well as hardware limit. You will likely hit against API/latency inefficiency before you should run out of actual theoretical hardware performance for a task like this, so getting closer to theoretical does mean something.Fillrate is horrible on these consoles. You can't take this isolated benchmark and apply it across the board to all scenarios. That's very misleading.
When these consoles can render native 4k/60FPS games, we can boast about fillrate. Until then, they are stuck with dynamic resolution because of the lack of fillrate.
Never heard of polygon fill rate.Pixel Dill Rate and Polygon Fill Rate are asynchronous with these benchmarks.
I have no clue whats being compared. My simple brain just wants game comparisons.
That's okay, but wouldn't be more interesting to see some shader, triangle, ray-tracing etc. performance than this? I mean it clocked higher than Turing, so faster fill-rate is understandable. But real-life performance?Ohh we understand.
The PS5 can render text/glyphs using this specific middleware faster than the RTX 2080 when you want to fill your whole screen with text....an absolute beast of a machine....at Font Rendering.
So obviously if it can render text that fast it must also be able to beat the RTX 2080 at everything else.
I dont think he has xsx ?
They say that consoles achieve same pc resolutions/frames at low/mid graphics (for example less effects) when for example 2080/2080ti runs at high. Do we have any source for example on Valhalla on what settings consoles are running it ?
i see. thanks for the clarification.It's a pixelfillrate heavy GPU benchmark rendering "simple" font glyphs. The CPU dosent matter in the same way it would on a more traditional "gaming" benchmark.
Fill Rate is commonly used to define peak theoretical polygon performance.Never heard of polygon fill rate.
You can have bigger polygons which require more pixels to fill it vs smaller ones which require less pixels.
They don't scale with each other.
That's okay, but wouldn't be more interesting to see some shader, triangle, ray-tracing etc. performance than this? I mean it clocked higher than Turing, so faster fill-rate is understandable. But real-life performance?
However I was talking about fanboyism primarly.
Also 2080 is waaay faster than PS5 at ray-tracing for example.
To me she'll always be Beth Brennan
damn she was cute
don't ruin her for me
It means the PS5 is a beast at displaying text.I don’t know what any of this means.
WTF is this? Why does this test even matter? How about a rest that a game would actually use?
PS5's 143 Gpix/s peak is horrible? I agree XSX's 116 Gpix/s is horrible, which is even lower than RDNA 1 5700 XT's 122 Gpix/s fillrate.Fillrate is horrible on these consoles. You can't take this isolated benchmark and apply it across the board to all scenarios. That's very misleading.
For $399 the PS5's pretty good.When these consoles can render native 4k/60FPS games, we can boast about fillrate. Until then, they are stuck with dynamic resolution because of the lack of fillrate.