SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Bizarre of you to say this when I literally said that the xsx fails to hold that advantage when dynamic elements are added on screen.
-
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] Immortals of Aveum PS5/Xbox Series X/S: Unreal Engine 5 is Pushed Hard - And Image Quality Suffers
- Thread starter Lunatic_Gamer
- Start date
- Analysis Review
Lysandros
Member
Maybe that's the wording, nevermind then. The thing i disagree to begin with is making specific cases a generality. What you say is certainly true let's say in the context of Control. But we are in the third year of the generation, there are also plenty of cases where XSX is slightly outperforming PS5 in dynamic situations and vice versa (like PS5 outperforming XSX with not much going on on screen) depending on games.
Last edited:
More confusion regarding the developer's statements.....
Those settings that have computational cost in the PC analysis are the same in XSX and PS5. From the .ini published by the developer for XSX and PS5 only the one related to Sharpening/CAS would be different. The rest are either 1:1 or only indicated on XSX and not on PS5.
We still do not know what (if any) is that higher setting on PS5 that makes IQ better and that is not CAS activated (which lacks any computational cost).
PS. 6700XT performace Is better than PS5 in this game despite the fact that the developer insists that PS5 is equivalent in performance to a 6700XT.
Last edited:
Crispy Gamer
Member
So DF latest video states PS5 textures are in fact at ultra settings so I'm guessing that's the same as Series X
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Is there any straight answer as to why the series x is outperforming the ps5 by such a significant amount yet?
No way ifs just the CAS setting.
No way ifs just the CAS setting.
MasterCornholio
Member
Is it constant?
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
I wouldn't say he insists unless I missed something. He says the PS5's GPU is basically a 6700 XT but falls behind because it has no boost clocks. The 6700 XT has more CUs but lower memory bandwidth so in general it's not THAT far ahead but should be faster most of the time, Sony developed games being the obvious exception. But yeah, in this game, a 6700 XT crushes the 2080 by 25% or so.
Last edited:
Mr Moose
Member
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Yes. In all stress points the series x is consistently 8 to 10 fps better than ps5.
I don't think 4 more CUs is going performs better as there's isn't memory contention since the 6700xt is one unit and has more cache plus a higher clock than the PS5.
Kataploom
Gold Member
I said it twice on this thread, both versions seem to be done by people not knowing other version's state so basically no full parity
nosoynadie22
Member
I see many saying that Microsoft should have released a $400 digital Series X, but is that really something they can do?
Phil Spencer recently said that he loses between 100 and 200 dollars for each console sold, while Sony in 2021 declared that it was no longer losing money on the standard edition.
Phil Spencer recently said that he loses between 100 and 200 dollars for each console sold, while Sony in 2021 declared that it was no longer losing money on the standard edition.
MasterCornholio
Member
OK so it isn't constant then. I guess that's why.
Low Moral Fibre
Member
If that dev really wrote that performance tool all I'm gonna say after looking at the PC menu is that he has no clue when it comes to the performance cost of settings so take what he is saying with a pinch of salt. He may be great at whatever his main job is but he's definitely not good at gauging performance.
Stuff that has literally zero impact on performance on PC can have a huge cost assigned to it in the tool. It's at best misleading and at worst completely useless.
Stuff that has literally zero impact on performance on PC can have a huge cost assigned to it in the tool. It's at best misleading and at worst completely useless.
Mr Moose
Member
Last edited:
Kataploom
Gold Member
I think it mostly had to do with chip availability, they could produce as many Series S as they wanted basically, since they were not competing with PS5 and XSX for supplies. I don't know much about it but that's as far as I could wrap by the little I could learn from GPU crypto fiasco technical conversations
Last edited:
Mr.Phoenix
Member
You know the thing about being on a witch hunt is that you will find witches no matter what.
The guy made the damn game, and you are here trying to discredit what he is saying.
But more importantly,it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that whatever info he has provided isn't exhaustive of everything that went into every configuration they had of the game. And that 6700XT comparison you are making... have any idea how stupid it is to make such a comparison? Are you using exact same CPU, are you running at the exact same clocks, are you even using the exact same drivers or running on the same platform? You do realize that you can pair a 6700xt with zen4 16c/32t CPU running at 5Ghz with a 6700xt and get vastly different performance with the same GPU but paired with a 6c/12tZen 2 CPU running at 3.5Ghz right?
If he says this is the PS5 equivalent GPU, he is speaking holistically not specifically. gain, doesn't take a genius to figure this out,but when viewing info through biased glasses reason is the first thing that tends to go out of the window. The dev even stated where the differences between the GPU on the PC and then on the PS5 differ or fall short. In the same way he spoke to the things that are just better on the PS5 than on a PC or Xbox.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
The tool isnt perfect, he himself said that.
Here are his comments on the tool which leverages the actual benchmark from Epic.
From what I understand the actual benchmark was written by Epic to try and figure out which GPU/console runs their nanite system the best since its mostly IO driven. He himself said that the tool isnt helpful for determining the average or 1% fps. Its a work in progress.
On another note, he said that they never ran their tool on the consoles but hes going to give a shot today because it sounds like fun to him. I love this guy.
Last edited:
Mr Moose
Member
He must be Toms GAF account, because he's blind. (Joking)
He missed the part that says
Which is not on the Xbox part.
"The other devs said about async and DS! So this guy is obviously wrong!"
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Definitely off topic, if you want to ta about the game, the game review thread, or OT if that exists is where that happens.
These inda threads are exclusively based on the tech. The game is just the horse the tech rode in on.
Mr Moose
Member
Looks a bit meh graphically.
It also fails to mention that the 6700XT also features the 96mb infinite cache that boosts bandwidth.
There is no witch hunt, I am simply trying to point out inconsistencies in his statements that is very different from denying his knowledge and veracity of what he says.
Yes, comparing GPU performance on PC vs console isn't 1:1, but I'm not punctuating this. I point out certain statements that do not show a real image or situation. Specifically when he compare the bandwidth and forget to mention the plus that for the 6700XT is 96mg of infinite cache. That is, it is not showing a 1:1 comparison.
Ohhh! You TOM obsesión always present ..
Yes, sorry, i missed that part, among other things because I focused on the XSX part more in those that I understand could affect the difference in IQ that is seen in the comparisons based on the fact that both have the same resolution base...
The thing is, publishing those .ini if anything, has only caused more confusion.
It Is you being "joking" again ehhh?
Last edited:
If it wasn't the first game to use most of UE5's bells and whistles I doubt many would care honestly.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Why? This is about where it should land. Anywhere from a 2070S to a 2080S is typically where consoles performance lies against NVIDIA hardware. Better to compare them to AMD hardware though. In this case, seems something like a 6600 XT or 6700 non XT would match the PS5.
MasterCornholio
Member
You believe he's real then?
Who knows, but DF has a pc video and the sharpening of fsr on looks just like PS5.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Well if you believe the configuration he have us then you believe the other things he said. He didn't just limit it to just sharpening.
Choose what benefits you the most is what I recommend.
mrcroket
Member
Take a look around other threads, there was a user who swore to me that his 2070s was much better than the gpus on consoles. And he is not the only one I have found here claiming similar things.
BootsLoader
Banned
Long live the proprietary engines.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
You see this is just not true. And whenever I see stuff like that all I see is someone who just went and looked up GPUTF numbers and found the closest one to the PS5 and called it a day. But it just doesn't work that way. PS5-level performance isn't just a TF thing. Its a TF, bandwidth, IO, SD platform and whatever other special customizations are made. There is a reason why they say console hardware has a way of punching above its weight.
I don't really wanna get into too much detail as I feel this is a waste of my time, but I will say this much.
If comparing PC GPU to consoe, round up.. not down. Eg.
the 6600XT is a 36CU, 8GB, 256GB/s, 8TF (base) - 10.6TF (boost) GPU.
the 6700XT is a 40CU, 12GB, 384GB/s, 11.8TF (base) - 13.2TF (boost) GPU.
Its flat-out stupid to look at those two GPUs and say, the 6600XT is more like the PS5 because it has a similar peak TF number. Because everything that goes into that GPU matters too. How much RAM does it have, whats its bandwidth, what are its drivers on PC, how often is it running at boost or base clocks, what CPU is paired with that GPU... hell, is it DX11 or DX12? This is the reason why whenever comparing PC to console hardware, you round up. You basically would need a PC with a 6700XT if using a CPU that is in the PS5 ballpark to get PS5-level performance.
Bojji
Member
PS5 has 6600XT but with almost twice memory bandwidth. There is no GPU like that in PC space so yeah direct comparisons doesn't really work.
winjer
Gold Member
But the 6600XT does have 32MB of L3 cache. It's not much, but at 1080p, 32MB manages to have a 50% cache hit.
The problem is that at 1440p, the cache hit ratio goes down to 35%. And at 4K it's around 25%.
Although the 6600XT has half the memory channels, it has the memory clocked higher, at 2000Mhz. While the memory of the PS5 is clocked at 1750Mhz.
On the other side, the PS5 GPU has to share that memory bandwidth with the CPU. That is probably 52GB/s out of the 448Gb/s.
So the diference in the memory subsystem is not as big as it seems.
Probably the biggest problem with the 6600XT is it's PCI-e 8X bus. On PC going from the CPU to GPU, and respective memory pools, is costly. But with this bus cut in half it makes it even worse.
Meanwhile, on the PS5, the CPU and GPU are right next to each other and talking to each other is much easier and cheaper, than on the PC.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
The Immortals dev compared it to a 13 tflops 6700xt (not the non-xt version). He specifically mentioned the higher vram bandwidth on the PS5. 6700xt has 380 GBps which is probably what the PS5 GPU has access to after the CPU reserves whatever it needs.
It seems Nanite or UE5 in general is very IO bound so the PS5 with its fast IO seems to be performing more like a 13 tflops AMD card.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Why do you act like this is new to you and you don't understand? In this particular game, this is how a 6600 XT performs:
This at 1080p/Max settings. Notice how the 6700 XT is above a 2080 Ti/3070? The 2080 as per DF benchmark is in the ballpark of a PS5 but AMD GPUs perform much better in that game. The PS5 would thus fall somewhere around a 6600 XT which would be around a 2080 or around a standard 6700. A 6700 XT wipes the floor with the 2080 in this game.
This is in this particular game. The 6600 XT sometimes performs much worse than the PS5, sometimes similarly, depending on the bottleneck.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
It wouldve been perfectly reasonable to assert that the 6600xt is more like the PS5 before UE5. UE5 seems to be a paradigm shift in how engines are designed. They are leveraging IO and memory bandwidth to stream in data really fast. Something UE4 and other last gen engines did not do. 6600xt was indeed bottlenecked by the 256 GBps vram but it only affected 4k performance. 1080p and 1440p performance was roughly on par with the PS5 in most games.
With UE5, that changes because now vram becomes important even at 1080p. And it seems Tim Sweeney was right when he said this:
People forget that Tim Sweeney pestered Cerny for an SSD. Probably because he knew where he wanted to take Unreal Engine in the future.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
People do this a lot, but that's not how it works. You don't look at a CPU and GPU that shares the same bus and RAMand say,o the CPU takes up 52GB/s anymore than one says 2/2.5GB of RAM is reserved for the OS as if some RAM chips get taken off the table.
If the CPU footprint is 2-3GB at any time, that 3GB is spread across all 8 RAM chips in the PS5.That means that at any time the CPU has access to all 448GB/s of bandwidth the same way the GPU that has an 8GB footprint has access to 448GB/s of bandwidth.
Memory contention, which is what a lot of people refer to, only happens if individual memory chips are segregated for either the CPU or GPU, in which case, that dedicated chip (or two or three) can only communicate via a specific bus, which in turn reduces the remaining available bus width for everything else. But that doesn't make sense when every RAM chip is identical.
The PS5 CPU and GPU have 448GB/s of bandwidth available to either of them... all the time. Simply because their data is spread out across all 8 RAM chips at any given time.
I get that... I am speaking generally though, not just about this game. Simply saying the PS5 is basically the 6600XT, is cutting it too close, because you would find more situations than not where the PS5 would outperform that GPU. And just saying, all those other things in the GPU that are not TF that are ignored, are very important, especially when compared to consoles.Why do you act like this is new to you and you don't understand? In this particular game, this is how a 6600 XT performs:
This at 1080p/Max settings. Notice how the 6700 XT is above a 2080 Ti/3070? The 2080 as per DF benchmark is in the ballpark of a PS5 but AMD GPUs perform much better in that game. The PS5 would thus fall somewhere around a 6600 XT which would be around a 2080 or around a standard 6700. A 6700 XT wipes the floor with the 2080 in this game.
This is in this particular game. The 6600 XT sometimes performs much worse than the PS5, sometimes similarly, depending on the bottleneck.
Exactly, its why I am speaking generally, There is a lot more than just a GPU TF number that ties to a game's overall performance.It wouldve been perfectly reasonable to assert that the 6600xt is more like the PS5 before UE5. UE5 seems to be a paradigm shift in how engines are designed. They are leveraging IO and memory bandwidth to stream in data really fast. Something UE4 and other last gen engines did not do. 6600xt was indeed bottlenecked by the 256 GBps vram but it only affected 4k performance. 1080p and 1440p performance was roughly on par with the PS5 in most games.
With UE5, that changes because now vram becomes important even at 1080p. And it seems Tim Sweeney was right when he said this:
People forget that Tim Sweeney pestered Cerny for an SSD. Probably because he knew where he wanted to take Unreal Engine in the future.
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
I was specifically referring to this game. The PS5 can range anywhere from a 6600 XT all the way up to a 6750 XT in Sony exclusives, sometimes even coming not too far behind the 6800 in GPU-bound scenarios. The PS5 GPU has no equivalent indeed but we can at least have a range.
winjer
Gold Member
No, the CPU never has access to all those 448Gb/s. There just is not need to have a memory controller on the CPU with that bandwidth.
Case in point, the test with the Series X chip, the 4800S. The CPU has a memory bandwidth of only 70Gb/s.
Something similar happens with the PS4, Xbox One and PS5, but with different values.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
And this is the mistake people keep making. like you using the `series X` chip, in a PC system to measure console performance.No, the CPU never has access to all those 448Gb/s. There just is not need to have a memory controller on the CPU with that bandwidth.
Case in point, the test with the Series X chip, the 4800S. The CPU has a memory bandwidth of only 70Gb/s.
Something similar happens with the PS4, Xbox One and PS5, but with different values.
Unified RAM. Its not like the CPU and GPU have separate memory controllers in a console. When looking at unified RAM,only thing that matters is how much of the RAM is available.
winjer
Gold Member
This is a salvaged board from a Series X. The thing it's missing is the GPU.
But the CPU and memory are identical.
There is no reason to waste transistors creating a data path and controller, to have 560GB/s to the CPU, when it will never use such bandwidth.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
That the CPu never uses that much bandwidth,is not saying the bandwidth s not available to it. Again, when looking at unified RAM, as long as the data is striped across all available RAM chips,you are getting the full bandwidth of that combined bus.
I am sure you know this, but I can't be too certain. On a PS5, the APU is connected to system RAM via 8 x (2x16) PHY memory interfaces which in turn are connected via 4 Unified memory controllers. The CPU does not have its own memory controller, it has its own cache that is connected to the same unified memory controller that the GPU is connected to. I don't know why the CPU would not use the available bandwidth, maybe its cache or timings... have no idea. What I know tho, is that there is no such thing in a system ie this such as, because the CPU is accessing RAM then it means GPU has such and such amount of bandwidth remaining.
memory contention is a thing, Sony even had a slide for the ps4 showing cpu use costing the gpu bandwidth. PS5 may have improved the cost, or the extra bandwidth makes it less of an issue but here is such a system with unified memory doing what your saying isn't a thing.
Split memory pools @ different bandwidths?
winjer
Gold Member
That memory bandwidth is available to the SoC. But inside the SoC each part will have it's own data path.
And the data path to the CPU is only 70Gb/s on the Series X. And if the number is correct, the number I heard for the PS5 is 52Gb/s. For the PS4 it's 25GB/s.
The thing is a modern AMD SoC, has several domains. Each with it's voltage, and bandwidth.
Unfortunately, AMD has not provided specific data regarding the SoC of these consoles. Otherwise, we could calculate exactly the values for each part of the SoC.
But I can give you a modern example of how the memory bandwidth of a CPU is not the bandwidth of the memory.
Zen4 can use DDR5 up to 8000 MT/s. This means a read memory bandwidth of 128GB/s.
But the each CCX only has one link of Infinity Fabric of 32b per clock cycle. This means that a single CCX Zen4 CPU will have half the IF bandwidth of a dual CCX CPU.
So for example, if someone clocks the IF to 2100Mhz, it means that a single CCX CPU will have 67.2Gb/s but a dual CCX CPU will have 134.4GB/s.
This is why people with CPUs like the 7600, 7700, 7800X3D see no improvements to performance when overclocking memory. Because, although the memory can reach much higher bandwidth values, the IF will bottleneck the system.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Thanks. I get what you are saying now and I understand.
Lysandros
Member
Again, there is absolutely nothing in the in the interview stating that PS5 ASYNC-I/O interaction is less performant than XSX ASYNC-DirectStorage (it doesn't make the slightest bit sense to begin with specs at hand), nothing. It is just his own distorted interpretation of it in a desperate attempt to create a contradiction. Now with the newly acquired info from the game's developer, there isn't even the slightest bit of doubt that the system which has a better ASYNC throughput from the interview is the PS5. Just to be accepted and move on.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gotta say..........you both make some good points.
Which is pretty much what we all expected in 2019
Last edited: