• 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.

[GamingBolt] WRC Generations Dev: Xbox Series X’s Raw GPU Performance is Better Than PS5’s, but Harder to Exploit

AzPmg88.png
Cerny's watching you.
 

twilo99

Member
You cant know that without a version of the game built from the beginning for next-gen to compare to.

You never know what extra bells and whistles could have been done without the need for cross-gen.

SX is modern hardware, calling it “last gen” is nothing but ignorance.
 

JackMcGunns

Member
Tools should be arriving by 2026 according to my source.

Here a pre development unit:

Tim Allen Power GIF by Laff


:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:



Jokes aside, it's literally what's being said, that the Series X is more powerful, but PS5 tools are better. PS5 tools can only improve up until 100% efficiency, so it's only a matter of time when XSX version of games will just perform better on a regular basis. Fortnite is probably a preview of what's to come since most games will be using UE5, at least in the near future.
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:



Jokes aside, it's literally what's being said, that the Series X is more powerful, but PS5 tools are better. PS5 tools can only improve up until 100% efficiency, so it's only a matter of time when XSX version of games will just perform better on a regular basis. Fortnite is probably a preview of what's to come since most games will be using UE5, at least in the near future.
They've been performing better the last 12 months or more iirc... But yeah, PC lacks modern Xbox features for velocity architecture, if they're not on PC maybe they can't start using them since they use PC for developing the games?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
From what I remember was about 10 of us or so that was the regular group who gamed together and just mainly remember Mike kept saying "they fucked up" in regards to Sony trying to get "cute" with the SSD and should have gone with more power.

I do remember them saying we will never see any real world in game differences as what that SSD tech would do as compared to the Xbox option

Maybe people don't find my little stories interesting and maybe I should stop since I am name dropping and all :)
Shows their lack of tech understanding, much like fanbases and gamers as a whole.

Was Penello with you?


And the biggest clown of them all. I remember all the L's he was handed out on Gaf in the leadup of the Xbox One launch when it came to tech/specs as well.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Possibly but have we seen yet that SSD put to use where we can say "Now that's something the Series X simply can't do?" type of thing?

Its an honest question
The decompression alone so far. On average, games are 30% smaller and still load assets faster.

Complete stream based engines being fully on next-gen may show some weight as well to make up for the non-"brute force" method.
 
Last edited:
Possibly but have we seen yet that SSD put to use where we can say "Now that's something the Series X simply can't do?" type of thing?

Its an honest question
Ratchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.

We can critique Cerny's choice of hyper-focusing on the SSD instead of GPU power.

However, look at Microsoft, they prioritised having more GPU performance than the PS5 yet the PS5 is still trading blows and maintaining parity with the Series X on most titles.

Microsoft also touted severel of the Series X/S features like DirectML, Velocity Architecture, VRS, Mesh Shaders and Ray tracing. Yet these features have a poor adoption rate across titles, especially Xbox first party titles (of course the sample size is small but that's another can of worms in itself.)

The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.

I think we should now stop questioning Mark Cerny's design choices for the PS5.
 
Last edited:

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
Ratchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.

We can critique Cerny's choice of hyper-focusing on the SSD instead of GPU power.

However, look at Microsoft, they prioritised having more GPU performance than the PS5 yet the PS5 is still trading blows and maintaining parity with the Series X on most titles.

Microsoft also touted severel of the Series X/S features like DirectML, Velocity Architecture, VRS, Mesh Shaders and Ray tracing. Yet these features have a poor adoption rate across titles, especially Xbox first party titles (of course the sample size is small but that's another can of worms in itself.)

The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.

I think we should now stop questioning Mark Cerny's design choices for the PS5.
I don't question any of the design decisions made by either team as all that is way above my pay grade

I just found it interesting how the higher ups at then Xbox viewed Cerny's decisions and thought some here might as well

I think as far as R&C goes if I am not mistaken Digital Foundry tested the slowest compatible SSD for the PS5 and loads times were only fractionally slower and this was on an SSD rated something like 50% slower than what Sony recommended
 

sinnergy

Member
Ratchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.

We can critique Cerny's choice of hyper-focusing on the SSD instead of GPU power.

However, look at Microsoft, they prioritised having more GPU performance than the PS5 yet the PS5 is still trading blows and maintaining parity with the Series X on most titles.

Microsoft also touted severel of the Series X/S features like DirectML, Velocity Architecture, VRS, Mesh Shaders and Ray tracing. Yet these features have a poor adoption rate across titles, especially Xbox first party titles (of course the sample size is small but that's another can of worms in itself.)

The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.

I think we should now stop questioning Mark Cerny's design choices for the PS5.
It’s less about power imo, but more about being market leader that gets more focus or money to develop games for. That is how it works .
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't question any of the design decisions made by either team as all that is way above my pay grade

I just found it interesting how the higher ups at then Xbox viewed Cerny's decisions and thought some here might as well

I think as far as R&C goes if I am not mistaken Digital Foundry tested the slowest compatible SSD for the PS5 and loads times were only fractionally slower and this was on an SSD rated something like 50% slower than what Sony recommended

Yes, you're right. They tested SN750 SE, which has 58% of the read/write recommended speed from Sony and it also didn't have a heat sink (which Sony also recommends) and they did not notice anything above a split second difference.


 
Last edited:
Ratchet & Clank is a good example, it can likely run on the Series X but the portal and traversal loading would likely be slower.

We can critique Cerny's choice of hyper-focusing on the SSD instead of GPU power.

However, look at Microsoft, they prioritised having more GPU performance than the PS5 yet the PS5 is still trading blows and maintaining parity with the Series X on most titles.

Microsoft also touted severel of the Series X/S features like DirectML, Velocity Architecture, VRS, Mesh Shaders and Ray tracing. Yet these features have a poor adoption rate across titles, especially Xbox first party titles (of course the sample size is small but that's another can of worms in itself.)

The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.

I think we should now stop questioning Mark Cerny's design choices for the PS5.
How do you figure there is poor adoption rate or are you conflating not hearing people talking about them as being non-utilized or under-utilized? Not saying you are wrong but this seems like a statement where you are using a lack of info as a source to prove a point. It simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny as anything more than conjecture.
 
Last edited:
How do you figure there is poor adoption rate or are you conflating not hearing people talking about them as being non-utilized or under-utilized? Not saying you are wrong but this seems like a statement where you are using a lack of info as a source to prove a point. It simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny as anything more than conjecture.

Any games using DirectML on Series X? None that I'm aware of.

Any games using Mesh Shaders on Series X? None that I'm aware of.

Any games using VRS on Series X? a handful and it's hardly a next-gen feature.

I'm glad to be proven wrong.

It's true there's a lack of information but that's mainly due to Xbox's embarrassingly poor offerings on first party titles, especially compared to Playstation. As for the potential of these features, hopefully we can start seeing them being leveraged with Starfield, since it's exclusive to Xbox and PC.

Yes, you're right. They tested SN750 SE, which has 58% of the read/write recommended speed from Sony and it also didn't have a heat sink (which Sony also recommends) and they did not notice anything above a split second difference.


[/URL]

Important to note that those slower SSD benefit from the PS5's IO block and software stack.
 
Any games using DirectML on Series X? None that I'm aware of.

Any games using Mesh Shaders on Series X? None that I'm aware of.

Any games using VRS on Series X? a handful and it's hardly a next-gen feature.

I'm glad to be proven wrong.
I'm not going to prove you wrong for two main reasons. 1 it doesn't really matter to me, and 2, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's your job to back up what you said, not mine or others to do the leg work for you.
 

Little Chicken

Gold Member
Half of the people in this thread were among those convinced the PS5 was a 14.5TF machine with 24GB HBM2 memory with a magical SSD which would make all games look better and erase load times entirely.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The PS5 has been leading the console space in ray-tracing implementations across titles, developers have been open about how they've leveraged the SSD to improve their games, they've taken advantage of machine learning features which the PS5 was suepposedley lacking (see Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales). 3D audio and haptics have been adopted by almost all first party titles and many 3rd party titles as well.

PS5 is leading the console space in terms of RT owing to it having more first party games out with it.

If you're talking about implementation and the performance costs, SX generally runs multi-platform RT games better.

RE Village, Control, Witcher 3, Metro Exodus EE etc all run with some advantages on Series X over PS5 either in terms of performance or higher dynamic resolutions, or both, in their RT modes.

Callisto Protocol is the only recent outlier, but that game released in a very poor state on Xbox compared to PS5 in the first place, you can see which platform got the primary focus from the developers.

-

MS needs more games with RT. I think we can safely rule out Starfield having RT. Redfall *might* have an RT mode, Forza Motorsport will be game play RT + 60 FPS so that'll be a great benchmark when it comes out.
 
Last edited:
PS5 is leading the console space in terms of RT owing to it having more first party games out with it.

If you're talking about implementation and the performance costs, SX generally runs multi-platform RT games better.

RE Village, Control, Witcher 3, Metro Exodus EE etc all run with some advantages on Series X over PS5 either in terms of performance or higher dynamic resolutions, or both, in their RT modes.

Callisto Protocol is the only recent outlier, but that game released in a very poor state on Xbox compared to PS5 in the first place, you can see which platform got the primary focus from the developers.

-

MS needs more games with RT. I think we can safely rule out Starfield having RT. Redfall *might* have an RT mode, Forza Motorsport will be game play RT + 60 FPS so that'll be a great benchmark when it comes out.
Metro Exodus and Witcher 3 don't run better on SX. The only games that have a clear improvement on SX that I know of are- bright memory infinite, hitman 3, and Lego Star Wars, I think I read Asseto Corsa has a higher resolution too but buying that turd of a port again to find out

I actually wish there WAS a difference in games between ps5 and series x as I bought an X after already having a ps5. Some people were saying Far Cry 6 had a higher resolution on X so my dumbest bought it twice (I know ..bad) and whatever improvement it might've had was mitigated by having worse lods...basically they look the same.

I think the notion of sx doing third parties better is more or less a myth. Hitman 3 and Lego Star Wars are the only games that are clearly running higher settings on SX
 
Metro Exodus and Witcher 3 don't run better on SX. The only games that have a clear improvement on SX that I know of are- bright memory infinite, hitman 3, and Lego Star Wars, I think I read Asseto Corsa has a higher resolution too but buying that turd of a port again to find out

I actually wish there WAS a difference in games between ps5 and series x as I bought an X after already having a ps5. Some people were saying Far Cry 6 had a higher resolution on X so my dumbest bought it twice (I know ..bad) and whatever improvement it might've had was mitigated by having worse lods...basically they look the same.

I think the notion of sx doing third parties better is more or less a myth. Hitman 3 and Lego Star Wars are the only games that are clearly running higher settings on SX
Forgot one more for SX- Doom Eternal looks a lot better in RT mode vs Ps5, which has lower AF and blurring RT reflections
 
One thing that I want to add that was an ingenious move by Sony that I don't understand why MS hasn't followed suit on is with the Dual Sense controller and Sony's brilliant marketing of 3d audio. Why would anyone who owns both consoles buy a 3rd party game on the SX when ps5 gives you those two things? Unless the resolution or graphics are better on SX (which almost never happens), then every purchase I make is for ps5

MS needs to put out their own version of the Dualsense. Probably not much they can do with audio since they don't have the Tempest audio tech. I know MS has Atmos but you need a Dolby atmos soundsystem for that.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Metro Exodus and Witcher 3 don't run better on SX. The only games that have a clear improvement on SX that I know of are- bright memory infinite, hitman 3, and Lego Star Wars, I think I read Asseto Corsa has a higher resolution too but buying that turd of a port again to find out

Witcher 3 on Series X runs both a higher dynamic res (1800p vs 1620p max) and a near 10% advantage in 30 FPS consistency (92.8% vs 84.6%) as per VGTech in the RT mode. Performance mode is mostly a wash with minor sub 1% difference.

Metro Exodus is mostly a wash w/ SX having a small DRS advantage, so we can remove that from my list.
I think the notion of sx doing third parties better is more or less a myth. Hitman 3 and Lego Star Wars are the only games that are clearly running higher settings on SX

There are a bunch of examples of that, the difference isn't as big like many PS4 and XBO as these are generally much closer than previous gen.
 
Last edited:

ChiefDada

Gold Member
I think as far as R&C goes if I am not mistaken Digital Foundry tested the slowest compatible SSD for the PS5 and loads times were only fractionally slower and this was on an SSD rated something like 50% slower than what Sony recommended

DF acknowledged towards end of the test that it was important to consider the fact the I/O was still being used regardless of whether console or off-shelf SSD had game data. And that is the part people forget; it is the i/o that is special, not the ssd.

But as far as multiplats, I don't expect much difference unless an engine specifically favors one design, api, etc. over the other
 

shiru

Banned
Switch version of WRC Generations is better, some very noticeable pop-in but less of the misery of WRC 10.



It is what it is: they're scaling down to an under-powered platform for a niche audience that doesn't buy a lot of sports/racing games. They are customizing it as much as is reasonable for the audience (and with results as bad as WRC 10, they probably should have abandoned or delayed the port,) but from a business perspective it's not the version of the game which is most vital to get right.

Come on, they didn't even try in the slightest. It's basically shovelware. Shoddy efforts don't help with sales.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ps5 and Series X will show very little performance gap this gen, you ain't even gonna notice it until performance reviews are out. It's all about first party studios that will showcase their games made for current gen only. Console warring should have ended long ago already.

Were it so easy. The big sticky everyone is supposed to read doesn't work either.
 
Last edited:

CamHostage

Member
Come on, they didn't even try in the slightest. It's basically shovelware. Shoddy efforts don't help with sales.

Well, it looks and runs better, so they did "try"...



I don't really care myself, don't buy it (I didn't,) I'm just letting people know that it's apparently not the same mess this time if you really want a WRC game on a portable (and don't have a Steam Deck.)

Switch users are used to not getting bespoke, optimized versions of games on their handheld/console hybrid (aside from Switch exclusives,) and some genres are severely underserved on the platform so that limits choices even further. (There's a little over 80 total racing games on Switch according to MetaCritic records, and if you've already played the heck out of V-Rally 4, there's not a lot else to consider aside from top-down stuff like Art of Rally.) Switch users also also used to just not buying things if they're bound to not be enticing on their platform (which has in turn driven some developers away from Switch despite its install base; it's a catch-22, they don't make good football games on Switch because the football audience doesn't buy these games on Switch, in part because they're not good.) If you play primarily with Switch, you have to live in the reality of their hardware and audience base, and sometimes a developer finds the money or talent to produce an "impossible port", but for the most part, you get what it gives or you find it somewhere else.

 
Last edited:

shiru

Banned
Well, it looks and runs better, so they did "try"...



I don't really care myself, don't buy it (I didn't,) I'm just letting people know that it's apparently not the same mess this time if you really want a WRC game on a portable (and don't have a Steam Deck.)

Switch users are used to not getting bespoke, optimized versions of games on their handheld/console hybrid (aside from Switch exclusives,) and some genres are severely underserved on the platform so that limits choices even further. (There's a little over 80 total racing games on Switch according to MetaCritic records, and if you've already played the heck out of V-Rally 4, there's not a lot else to consider aside from top-down stuff like Art of Rally.) Switch users also also used to just not buying things if they're bound to not be enticing on their platform (which has in turn driven some developers away from Switch despite its install base; it's a catch-22, they don't make good football games on Switch because the football audience doesn't buy these games on Switch, in part because they're not good.) If you play primarily with Switch, you have to live in the reality of their hardware and audience base, and sometimes a developer finds the money or talent to produce an "impossible port", but for the most part, you get what it gives or you find it somewhere else.

It still looks like a hot mess. I don't see any improvements. That it runs at only 30fps is embarrassing considering the lack of detail and racers. And especially what devs like Panic Button managed to do on the system. If the devs think that's ok then whatever, but I don't see why Switch owners should simply accept sub-par efforts like this when the system is capable of a lot more.
 

Lysandros

Member
I think as far as R&C goes if I am not mistaken Digital Foundry tested the slowest compatible SSD for the PS5 and loads times were only fractionally slower and this was on an SSD rated something like 50% slower than what Sony recommended
There is the very small thing that this "50% slower SSD" is connected to PS5's custom I/O complex which contains a beefy decompressor, two co-processors, a low latency/high bandwidth SRAM pool, coherency engines and a DME DMAC...
 
Last edited:

rnlval

Member
This likely goes hand in hand with the PS5's GPU being more easily used to its peak, while the XSX needs some workarounds to show more of its power. This workaround would work just the same on the PS5 as well, worth remembering, unless the move to being bandwidth bound ends up mattering.

There's been a lot of people referencing the PS5's system design being amazing on developers and I feel like we didn't really know what they meant, even the now Xbox exclusive Todd Howard said the PS5 was a beastly system design on the Lex interview, I think they made a really great unbottlenecked system design, it sounds like a meme but it's really not. We're also seeing games that lean into the SSD offload tech like Returnal need 32GB of RAM to do the same thing on PC, because while on paper PC SSDs can already be faster, again in practice becomes very different and it's all that offload it did which would be the equivalent of 16 Zen 2 cores or something along those lines.

This is not to say any fanboy nonsense like Microsoft didn't think about their system design, it does have higher shader performance, but there's some workarounds needed to really show it off fully.
The mentioned compute shader/TMU path workaround is useful when there's an unused compute shader resource and attempts to shift the bottleneck towards memory bandwidth and L2 cache (software render tile methods).

PC's DX12U DirectStorage support was late and Returnal does not use PC's DX12U DirectStorage.

Returnal's minimum system requirement is 16 MB.
 
Last edited:

rnlval

Member
Split memory bandwith (10GB have full bandwith and the remaining 6 are slower)
wide and (it looks like) more complicated than PS5 GPU processing power.
XSX's memory bandwidth difference is based on the memory address range.

The frame buffers should be located in the fastest memory bandwidth location.

Based on PC NAVI 21's 128 MB Infinity Cache hit rates, 10 GB of fast memory space is more than enough.
 

rnlval

Member
There is the very small thing that this "50% slower SSD" is connected to PS5's custom I/O complex which contains a beefy decompressor, two co-processors, a low latency/high bandwidth SRAM pool, a coherency engine and a DME...
Reminders,

Ryzen 7 5800X with 8 Zen 3 CPU cores are roughly equivalent to 12 Zen 2 cores on Ryzen 9 3900X.

Ryzen 7 7700X with 8 Zen 4 CPU cores are roughly equivalent to 12 Zen 3 cores on Ryzen 9 5900X.

I have Ryzen 9 7900X with 12 Zen 4 CPU cores are roughly equivalent to 16 Zen 3 cores on Ryzen 9 5950X. On AI/ML workloads, Zen 4 crushed Zen 2 and Zen 3.

Intel Alder Lake (Core i5 with 6 P-Cores and 4 E-Cores) and AMD Zen 3 (8 Zen 3 cores) class gaming PCs can waste one Zen 2 core. Zen 2 core is roughly equivalent to Intel's old Coffee Lake CPU core.

Alder Lake's E-Cores are roughly equivalent to Intel's old Sky Lake CPU cores.

PS5's Zen 2 core is slower than desktop PC's non-APU Zen 2 core with full L3 cache config.

Gaming PC hardware has evolved beyond Zen 2-era hardware.

PC Returnal's recommended CPU's Intel i7-8700 (6 Coffeelake cores @ 3.7 GHz) and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (8 Zen 1.5 cores @ 3.7 GHz) is LOL.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X's AVX2 is not the full 256-bit AVX 2 hardware i.e. four 128-bit AVX2 hardware per Zen 1.5 core. It seems Returnal is using AVX-128 instructions.
 

clampzyn

Member
I have Ryzen 9 7900X with 12 Zen 4 CPU cores are roughly equivalent to 16 Zen 3 cores on Ryzen 9 5950X. On AI/ML workloads, Zen 4 crushed Zen 2 and Zen 3.
I dont know what your point is but you're comparing a recent CPU vs a CPU made like 2yrs+ ago? Ofc it would be better in almost every aspect.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom