• 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.

Digital Foundry about XSX teraflops advantage : It's kinda all blowing up in the face of Xbox Series X

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
According to these number it is:

Let's not forget the RDNA 2 clock speed and the over (up to) 20gb/s I/O that gives that super fast data streaming....
 

zeldaring

Banned
Dude they can release shit hardware and release wolverine tlou3 Spiderman 2 etc and it will sell like hot cakes.
PS4 pro was much weaker than Xbox one X still did better then it
At the end of the day it is all about the games
No. remember many people buy these consoles for third party games. Having the competition run games much better will hurt sales. just look at 360 vs ps3 a huge reason, 360 was able to compete was cause most mutiplatform games ran better and the biggest Seller was COD
 

//DEVIL//

Member
No. remember many people buy these consoles for third party games. Having the competition run games much better will hurt sales. just look at 360 vs ps3 a huge reason, 360 was able to compete was cause most mutiplatform games ran better and the biggest Seller was COD
And look at the Xbox one X getting destroyed in sales compared to ps4 pro.

It's not about third party games. It's about the first party output as well.

If you have one space in your living room for one console. Or you don't want to invest in 2 systems for whatever financial or just as I said no space or no time.

Which one you will go with ? The most powerful console or the one that has the games you want the most ?

Who cares if X game look slightly better texture in one system over the other. the experience won't be degraded and you won't lose sleep over it. But you will be missing if you picked a system that is powerful but lack in games ( like you suggested )
 

zeldaring

Banned
And look at the Xbox one X getting destroyed in sales compared to ps4 pro.

It's not about third party games. It's about the first party output as well.

If you have one space in your living room for one console. Or you don't want to invest in 2 systems for whatever financial or just as I said no space or no time.

Which one you will go with ? The most powerful console or the one that has the games you want the most ?

Who cares if X game look slightly better texture in one system over the other. the experience won't be degraded and you won't lose sleep over it. But you will be missing if you picked a system that is powerful but lack in games ( like you suggested )
Can't really compare a late generation upgrade to new consoles though. By the time xbone x came ps4 already won the generation and momentum was not slowing down. Many things go into console sales, and it's just not games. look at wiiu for example look at what those same games did for switch.
 
Last edited:

Killjoy-NL

Member
I don't know what to tell you @Mr.Phoenix, if you think the XSX is out of touch with the current console market. If that's the case, well you know what that says about the PS5.

Sony and MS released $500 consoles (the disk drive models) at launch and both boxes perform similarly to each other. If MS needs a couple more TF to make that happen due to differences in the way the APIs and SDKs are structured, it was smart for them to pick those up in the spec. With the specs they chose they can reach performance parity (often they do get a 15-20% edge in resolution which is all the GPU difference amounts to, by the way) and still get the long-term benefits that their more hardware agnostic API approach provides. Mission accomplished.
Was it smart though? Because afaik they went with a standard design, while Mark Cerny took a completely different approach and minimized bottlenecks.

Wouldn't make MS dumb, but it would make Cerny's design genius.
 
Last edited:
Misguided, there is as much debate about performance differences of MS/windows /Xbox vs Linux overheads and that's not even entering into developer experience or skillsets or tools etc.

It's a specific metric for a specific comparison not a whole system or game release/development.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
its all relative, id say if your competitor can achieve pretty much same results with %20 smaller apu, you are not doing the best job.

You are deluded if you think the XsX technical design is more efficient.

The real proof of that will be in the next-revisions. When the power curve moves on both consoles because a lower lithography can handle the higher GPU clocks and CU counts better, it is a certainty the PS5 will see energy efficiency that the XsX can't get close to, even if they are still subsidizing an expensive vapor chamber to misrepresent how the silicon's thermal profile measures up helping it draw less than it should at those clocks.

The other dead giveaways that the XsX isn't as efficient is that 3years on, it is still massively losing money on hardware. Efficient designs are efficient with the power they use and this is reflected in the ease and cheapness with which revisions can be done as pricing and reliability on components improves, and the size reduction in percentage and absolute terms will also favour the PS5, as has been the trend of every PlayStation.

You guys have completely lost the grasp on efficient. You're making up things to try and dispute my comments which are factually correct. It's science. So your comments fail.

Energy in providing energy out is efficiency.

You have two athletes on a running machine. One requires more fuel...food to be pumped into them to reach their goal at the same time. To reach the same performance they are in a larger box with the running machine that takes up more space and requires considerably more energy to be put in to put energy out.

The other is in a smaller box and requires less food and energy in to reach their performance level. On the right days and conditions this athlete can perform up to 20 percent faster on that same efficiency.

Which is more efficient. Energy efficient. Power efficient?

It's a fact and I'm not going to argue about a completely different console launching 3 years later.

I get it, no one here can give micorosft their props but the series x, when all things are taken into account is a brilliantly designed console imo.
 

nowhat

Member
Misguided, there is as much debate about performance differences of MS/windows /Xbox vs Linux overheads and that's not even entering into developer experience or skillsets or tools etc.

It's a specific metric for a specific comparison not a whole system or game release/development.
What's Linux got to do with this? PS4/PS5 OS is based on FreeBSD.
 
Terraflops are important. SX issue is not terraflops. Its split memory architecture design and forced Parity with S.


Coliation, PG,Ninja theory and few selected 3rd party devs only take true advantage of SX power. Rest just focus on PS5 as lead platform due to bigger install base.
 
Halo was bad from a PR perspective. I know that it is a wrong thing to do, but playing and loving TLOU 2 and Ghost of Tsushima and looking around that time at Craig made it hard to trust them. I understand that for those that played the game it had good points. Just that it is not a 10/10 game in my opinion and those kind of games are what Xbox needs to get better like the PS3 did. I agree that not being lead platform is a problem but look at games like Resident evil 4 remake and Hogwarts. They are not bad on the Series X. On the contrary. So not being lead platform is not a huge problem.
Xbox have to give us great games. I hope that Starfield will be one. And that we will get others. The question is will they even try? Or will they go for a early start nest gen in 2026/2027 like some people have been saying recently? On the PR side Xbox have to be more global too. Outside of the Us they are inexistent sadly.
Halo Infinite is still my fav game of this generation depressingly enough and I think it looks more than good enough on my Series X and is after all a cross-gen game. 'Apparently' John Litterman did a tweet that Series console has won 60% of the comparisons, but many (including me) with just see how lame the Series X is at games like Ghost Wire and Hogs and saying Hogwarts isn't bad on the Series X, is like saying Bayonetta isn't that bad on the PS3. I remember an interview with Platinum who said that after what happened (not helped by being outsourced) The likes of Vanquish would lead on the PS3 and gone were the issues.

Starfield isn't going to make a case of these graphics can only be done on the Series X since its going for scale, it can more than make a case for this game can only be done on the current line of consoles. I waiting until Forza and Hellbalde 2 to really see what the Series X can do (Hopefully) But to me, it isn't all about graphics.

If you want competition MS, then it isn't just about the number of studios, the number of games. You have to be competitive with SONY on PR and Price. XBox PR is utter crap and at the time of SONY cutting its price (ok it was higher to begin with) XBox is raising there's, it's a terrible look. Ok, MS may not be able to cut the price of the Series X due the chipset, but the Series S?. Really MS should counter with a big price drop for the Series S.

XBox PR is like that for SEGA America in the Saturn days, utter sh8t

 
Last edited:

Kataploom

Gold Member
In GPU bound scenarios Xbox Series X performs better than ps5 as it should and I'm CPU bound scenarios (like 120 fps modes) it's otherwise due to ps5 CPU being free from those tasks, I don't see the "controversy" here.

As usual GAF with that weird hate towards Xbox. Some should go get away from internet for a moment.
 
As usual GAF with that weird hate towards Xbox. Some should go get away from internet for a moment.
The reason people hate xbox is because Microsoft introduced paying for everything like a service. I'm so happy that online is paid for when ps2/ps3 were free. I'm so glad that expansion packs turned into dlc. I'm also happy that they introduced microtransactions and horse armor.
 

Barakov

Member
In GPU bound scenarios Xbox Series X performs better than ps5 as it should and I'm CPU bound scenarios (like 120 fps modes) it's otherwise due to ps5 CPU being free from those tasks, I don't see the "controversy" here.

As usual GAF with that weird hate towards Xbox. Some should go get away from internet for a moment.
Not really. They introduced a lot of bad stuff(paid online, nickle and diming dlc etc.) so any hate they get is pretty deserved.
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
The reason people hate xbox is because Microsoft introduced paying for everything like a service. I'm so happy that online is paid for when ps2/ps3 were free. I'm so glad that expansion packs turned into dlc. I'm also happy that they introduced microtransactions and horse armor.
Oh, poor Sony and Nintendo just wanted to do the best for the gamers but bad MS obligated then to charge for stuff and earn more money.

Damn if only one could refuse to pay for a completely optional service...
 
The reason people hate xbox is because Microsoft introduced paying for everything like a service. I'm so happy that online is paid for when ps2/ps3 were free. I'm so glad that expansion packs turned into dlc. I'm also happy that they introduced microtransactions and horse armor.
Overlooking that's pathetic, it;s also wrong too. SEGA looked to charge for Online gaming and to use the Square PS2 service in Japan you had to pay.
Most would happily pay for LIVE because it was so much better than the crap you go on the PS2 OG XBox was so much better for Online gaming. To SONY's credit, they did use dedicated servers on the PS3, which is something MS really should have done on the 360

The main reason many don't like MS on here... is because they're SONY fans. It's basic football (soccer) mentality Hate or dislike your rivals. There's nothing wong in it, but just be honest
 
Last edited:
Overlooking that's pathetic, it;s also wrong too. SEGA looked to charge for Online gaming and to use the Square PS2 service in Japan you had to pay.
Most would happily pay for LIVE because it was so much better than the crap you go on the PS2 OG XBox was so much better for Online gaming. To SONY's credit, they did use dedicated servers on the PS3, which is something MS really should have done on the 360

The main reason many don't like MS on here... is because they're SONY fans. It's basic football (soccer) mentality Hate or dislike your rivals. There's nothing wong in it, but just be honest
You talking Sega. Net? Because that was an actual isp so you could use the internet for that.

You mean ff11? That was an mmorpg so I'm assuming that was always pay to play. Or was there another service that square had?

Xbox online was still essentially heat.net for pc except heat was cheaper. Same for any multitude of pc games way back when which were free. But my memory eludes me as it's been forever since i used heat.net or Dwango or Duke. Net
 

Three

Member
Oh, poor Sony and Nintendo just wanted to do the best for the gamers but bad MS obligated then to charge for stuff and earn more money.

Damn if only one could refuse to pay for a completely optional service...
How would a once free ability to play online becoming paid be an 'optional service'? That's not optional.
 
Last edited:
You talking Sega. Net? Because that was an actual isp so you could use the internet for that.

You mean ff11? That was an mmorpg so I'm assuming that was always pay to play. Or was there another service that square had?

Xbox online was still essentially heat.net for pc except heat was cheaper. Same for any multitude of pc games way back when which were free. But my memory eludes me as it's been forever since i used heat.net or Dwango or Duke. Net
No, not just SEGA Net. Towards the end of the DC SEGA looked to charge you a monthly fee to play the Sports games, but way before that to play Saturn games over the net link in Japan users had to buy a card to be placed in the Netlink to play games over the phone and I'm not on about FF11. Square has its own dictated Online service for the PS2 (Japan Only) and it cost.

Overlooking all that mind, was just how terrible Online gaming was on the PS2 compared to the OG XBox.
 
Last edited:

ArcaneNLSC

Member
Penis size, like always.
Season 2 Love GIF by LoveIslandUSA
 
In GPU bound scenarios Xbox Series X performs better than ps5 as it should and I'm CPU bound scenarios (like 120 fps modes) it's otherwise due to ps5 CPU being free from those tasks, I don't see the "controversy" here.

As usual GAF with that weird hate towards Xbox. Some should go get away from internet for a moment.
Another day another hysterical hate fuelled anti Xbox wank thread 🤷‍♂️
 

PaintTinJr

Member
You guys have completely lost the grasp on efficient. You're making up things to try and dispute my comments which are factually correct. It's science. So your comments fail.

Energy in providing energy out is efficiency.

You have two athletes on a running machine. One requires more fuel...food to be pumped into them to reach their goal at the same time. To reach the same performance they are in a larger box with the running machine that takes up more space and requires considerably more energy to be put in to put energy out.

The other is in a smaller box and requires less food and energy in to reach their performance level. On the right days and conditions this athlete can perform up to 20 percent faster on that same efficiency.

Which is more efficient. Energy efficient. Power efficient?

It's a fact and I'm not going to argue about a completely different console launching 3 years later.

I get it, no one here can give micorosft their props but the series x, when all things are taken into account is a brilliantly designed console imo.
You are simplifying by comparing low effort PC ports that don't even achieve parity with AMD PC hardware with the same "teraflops".

The capabilities of the two consoles to push gaming forward are not equal, and that was very apparent when we got the first set of technical measurements off the first UE5 presentation. When another device can run a heavy nanite pass as quick and efficiently as the PS5 then your two runners analogy might apply, but the PS5 has hardware capabilities that the XsX doesn't and are not a clockspeed or CU count difference, while using similar amounts of power as the XsX.

If you haven't tried it, yet I seriously recommend trying the PSVR2 call of the mountain and then ask yourself if you honestly think the XsX could stream that geometry and textures in time to deliver that experience even using more power than PS5. I am sure it can't. For me it was like being 10years old and trying a Sega sit-in arcade machine for the first time, all over again and appreciating the gulf between arcade solutions and home gaming.
 
Last edited:

chonga

Member
Teraflops is and always has been a poor metric to compare performance. Not sure how this is new revelation from the DF team.
It isn't, they've talked about this topic before.

In any case we know directly from Microsoft that it isn't about teraflops. What matters is how many transistors and uncompressed pixels you have.
 

Lysandros

Member
does ps5 really have an extra arm cpu with 512mb for OS tasks?

That makes ps5 have more memory and cpu than xsx...
PS5 does have 512 MB of additional DRAM for its SSD, it is also naturally used for OS operations. So technically 16.5 GB of total memory on board.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
You are simplifying by comparing low effort PC ports that don't even achieve parity with AMD PC hardware with the same "teraflops".

The capabilities of the two consoles to push gaming forward are not equal, and that was very apparent when we got the first set of technical measurements off the first UE5 presentation. When another device can run a heavy nanite pass as quick and efficiently as the PS5 then your two runners analogy might apply, but the PS5 has hardware capabilities that the XsX doesn't and are not a clockspeed or CU count difference, while using similar amounts of power as the XsX.

If you haven't tried it, yet I seriously recommend trying the PSVR2 call of the mountain and then ask yourself if you honestly think the XsX could stream that geometry and textures in time to deliver that experience even using more power than PS5. I am sure it can't. For me it was like being 10years old and trying a Sega sit-in arcade machine for the first time, all over again and appreciating the gulf between arcade solutions and home gaming.

Dude. The series x is running all legit unreal engine 5 games the same as the ps5. Fortnite at higher resolutions too.

Talk to me about reality of software in our hands and not hypertheticals and exclusive titles....call of the mountain, what?
 
Dude. The series x is running all legit unreal engine 5 games the same as the ps5. Fortnite at higher resolutions too.

Talk to me about reality of software in our hands and not hypertheticals and exclusive titles....call of the mountain, what?

Maybe stop expecting so much out of the Series X is my recommendation.
 

KungFucius

King Snowflake
They were pushing it so hard and when it didn't materialize they blamed the "tools" and dev kits

fbCYdXh.jpg
Unless they have a PC too. In that case they will see the thing as another cheap piece of crap that they bought just to play exclusives a bit early. FF the PS5 is no different from the PS4 or 3 or whatever. It is comodity HW that is better than the last gen but not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination.
 

Lysandros

Member
In GPU bound scenarios Xbox Series X performs better than ps5 as it should and I'm CPU bound scenarios (like 120 fps modes) it's otherwise due to ps5 CPU being free from those tasks, I don't see the "controversy" here.

As usual GAF with that weird hate towards Xbox. Some should go get away from internet for a moment.
There is absolutely not such an established fact or general rule. PS5 can well outperform XSX in GPU bound scenarios since it has as many hardware advantages on that front. Notably in (pixel) fill rate, local bandwidth and geometry bound scenarios PS5 should be expected to outperform XSX. There are plentiful of cases where PS5 has even the resolution advantage. We should stop acting as if XSX GPU is all around superior to PS5's at some point, this is a plain faulty assumption.

And as far as I'm concerned i have nothing bad to say about XSX. It has undeniable advantages such as power consumption and form factor and it's certainly competitive with PS5 in performance front.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
Dude. The series x is running all legit unreal engine 5 games the same as the ps5. Fortnite at higher resolutions too.

Talk to me about reality of software in our hands and not hypertheticals and exclusive titles....call of the mountain, what?
We are talking about hardware, and in that regard the efficiency of true next-gen rendering techniques with sub-pixel geometry density like nanite, both from the first info and the info by Microsoft's developer's puts PS5 at 2-4x faster at nanite. If the workload was just like nanite, the power use (efficiency) of {PS5's would then finish in half or a quarter of the time using that amount of relative power too.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
We are talking about hardware, and in that regard the efficiency of true next-gen rendering techniques with sub-pixel geometry density like nanite, both from the first info and the info by Microsoft's developer's puts PS5 at 2-4x faster at nanite. If the workload was just like nanite, the power use (efficiency) of {PS5's would then finish in half or a quarter of the time using that amount of relative power too.

Prove it to me in released software.
 

AngelMuffin

Member
Sigh. Tflops do matter. If they didn’t, Sony would be releasing a 10 tflops ps5 pro with more secret sauce io and 50 gbps ssds instead. No, they will still up the tflops because that is literally the computing power of the gpu.

What ms did is create a gpu with obvious drawbacks and paired it up with a bizarre split ram solution. It’s a poorly designed console that needs to be criticized and studied to ensure same mistakes aren’t repeated. However, one poorly architected console shouldn’t be used to say that tflops don’t matter.
Remember that one time Sony used a split Ram configuration in the PS3?
 
I really did try to talk to you people

DdVoN4l.png




g3xnE5x.png



Amen to that.

I said ps5 pro "is" around 22-23tf in a sense that it performance like a machine that has a 22-23tf gpu, not that the actual count is 22-23tf, in the same way that a 10.28 tf machine (ps5) performances like a 12tf (XSX) or even better

Stop using the silly Tflops metrics once and for all!!
 

AngelMuffin

Member
I find most of the trouble for Series X games when it comes to 3rd parties comes from Unreal 4. Otherwise is close or sometimes the Series X comes out on top. I'm looking forward to Forza and Hellblazer to really show off the Series X mind, just like Flight sim. By all means make fun, if I'm wrong.
Hellblazer later sounds awesome!
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Prove it to me in released software.
That's why I recommended you go try Horizon: Call of the Mountain on PSVR2 to be blown away by the in headset visuals with the texture quality, geometry and visual fx- even if you don't like the VR experience.

I thought you might of responded directly to my point about the revisions. Do you dispute the logic that the PS5 revisions will use the least power, have the lowest BoM and have the smallest volume? While matching up on gaming and on ambient noise at full load?

As an Xcloud GPU unit for running two XsS GPU sessions per console (with FSR added at the client) the XsX design makes a lot of sense IMO, but as a competitor to PS5 with the BoM Microsoft will have for it, it doesn't look like it's headline TF number is complimented by the design decisions they made.
 
So DF is doing a self own? Acting like they weren’t pushing the lie. You mean PS5 having twice the I/O throughput is an important factor?!?!? Who would have thought?!?!
 

Zok310

Banned
Can nintendo and ms just copy the ps5’s architecture or is it under some patent lock on key by sony?

Asking because i dont know how devs go back from here, kind of feel like on consoles there is no putting this back in the box.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Was it smart though? Because afaik they went with a standard design, while Mark Cerny took a completely different approach and minimized bottlenecks.

Wouldn't make MS dumb, but it would make Cerny's design genius.

I don't believe the PS5 is particularly special, no. The primary bottleneck for both systems is the CPU design.

The belief that the PS5 is performing better than its specs is just a case of many not understanding how similar these two GPUs are to each other. They try to compare to PC parts with a similar TF difference, but in the PC world all aspects of the GPU typically move upward with each improvement. On paper both of these console GPUs have distinct statistical advantages, the fact they perform similarly is the expected result for them.

The reality is that MS created the smaller more efficient system and hit their performance target. Sony did likely create the cheaper to produce system which from a business perspective is a big win for them.
 

Lysandros

Member
We are talking about hardware, and in that regard the efficiency of true next-gen rendering techniques with sub-pixel geometry density like nanite, both from the first info and the info by Microsoft's developer's puts PS5 at 2-4x faster at nanite. If the workload was just like nanite, the power use (efficiency) of {PS5's would then finish in half or a quarter of the time using that amount of relative power too.
I didn't know about this. Can i have a link for it? Speaking of UE5 we certainly need more benchmarks. I am really curious about why credible outlets didn't make a comparison analysis on games like Layers of Fear using this engine, resolution/FPS findings could be useful.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
That's why I recommended you go try Horizon: Call of the Mountain on PSVR2 to be blown away by the in headset visuals with the texture quality, geometry and visual fx- even if you don't like the VR experience.

I thought you might of responded directly to my point about the revisions. Do you dispute the logic that the PS5 revisions will use the least power, have the lowest BoM and have the smallest volume? While matching up on gaming and on ambient noise at full load?

As an Xcloud GPU unit for running two XsS GPU sessions per console (with FSR added at the client) the XsX design makes a lot of sense IMO, but as a competitor to PS5 with the BoM Microsoft will have for it, it doesn't look like it's headline TF number is complimented by the design decisions they made.

I love VR, but we can not compare a game like call of the mountain vs the Xbox here. we are going to need actual games on both and for Unreal engine 5 we currently have Remnant 2 and Fortnite. They are more or less identical with a resolution advantage to xbox in fortnite.
 
Top Bottom