adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Different API.
-
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.
HW| does Xbox Series X really have 12 Teraflops ?
- Thread starter Bernoulli
- Start date
Different API.
The Studio says that the PS5 version is their priority, which they have been working on since its launch and the version that will be released first.
The XSX version (which was not planned at the beginning) will be a port that will be released later and they have been working on it for a short time...
It is a matter of logic to think which version is more advanced and which one would need more optimization time... that is, assuming that the port to XSX is profitable and they want dedicate enough time to it.
Horseganador
Member
There is always an excuse with Xbox and we are already in the third year of generation, at the beginning it is that the tools were green, that Sony paid and made parity contracts, the APIs, the developers focus on PS5 and now we have to wait for UE5....ok.
Lysandros
Member
This question again? How is this anywhere near to PS5/XSX situation hardware wise? Don't you read the posts on your own thread?
Bernoulli
M2 slut
The hardware is the same on the same architecture
Juste like PC hardware we have multiple cards with different clocks
But it could be the API like someone else said, but shouldn't directx be easier since it has been available everywhere even on pc?
Lysandros
Member
Those are semi custom APUs 'based' on the same architecture, they are not exactly the same. There are differences in ROP hardware, there are differences in cache side of things like the Cache Scrubbers on PS5 besides layout and frequency. PS5 isn't a 3060, XSX isn't a 3070. With the most blatant reason being that in PS5/XSX situation each system's GPU is slightly ahead/faster depending on the metric/thoughtput relevant to game performance, so they are evenly matched. Whereas RTX 3070 is very much ahead of RTX 3060 in every single area, it's designed to be so and priced accordingly. It's a very simple concept to grasp really, not sure why it's posing that much of a problem.
Last edited:
TheRedRiders
Member
API differences.
PS5 uses an entirely different API system to Xbox/Microsoft's DirextX.
There's a relatively small workload when porting from one to the other, however it can get a little more complicated when porting API's built around specific and custom features.
A good example is God of War's particle system couldn't be ported to PC in a straight forward manor because it relied heavily on PS4's GPGPU compute feature. The developers had to re-write the code for this to run on the CPU for the PC version.
Not the API it's just where the bottlenecks of the specs are.
One has higher than normal fixed function processing because of the higher clocks & the other has higher than normal compute because of the extra CUs
Tossing the same code on both consoles will mostly see PS5 take the lead because of the fixed function hardware while offloading stuff to compute will give Series X the advantage if PS5 hits it's compute limits.
It's always going to be about how the game is designed & what limits are reached.
In a perfect world games would be coded to take advantage of each console's strengths.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
I have a theory that full-blown development on Series S & X didn't kick off until late 2017, as the dual-console approach seems like it was influenced by the One S & One X. But, Microsoft probably wanted to wait and see how the fanbase & market reacted to those systems before committing to a dual-console approach in 9th gen, and would have needed to wait until at least mid-late 2017 before greenlighting that approach.
There are some things, like getting members of the Surface team to work on Series S & X, the first sprinklings of hardware rumors tied to the Series X (I think one such leak came about in very early 2018), the push to make it seem like Series S & X were "full RDNA2", the reported scaling down of budget & resources to the Xbox division around late 2016 & 2017 (when Myerson was supposedly running things, and where MS was rumored considering shutting down Xbox), lead me to think that.
It makes some sense, too; after the XBO was thoroughly rejected by a big part of the market, if MS had plans for a successor continuing in that direction, those plans were likely scrapped and they probably put early design work on an XBO successor paused, while looking to improve the XBO itself. Whatever design ideas were being done for XBO's successor at this time would have been glacial and iterated as they attempted fixes to the XBO like removing Kinect, introducing the BC program, pushing Day 1 PC for all their games, redesigning the XDK to support DX12, etc.
And all of that cumulated with the One S & One X. With those I think MS had enough data to decide on what they really wanted XBO's successor to be, and their game-plan. Phil Spencer tied all of this to Game Pass to convince Satya Nadella to push forward with a new Xbox, and that's probably at the time the Series S & Series X began full hardware development as we know it. They pulled in members of the Surface team because that division has experience in prototyping & building new hardware under a tight deadline, and Microsoft only had but so much time to engineer the new Xboxes before going into QA testing with chip revisions and getting contracts worked out, wafers allocated, all that stuff.
This compressed timeline also made Microsoft very dependent on AMD getting the general RDNA2 features implemented as Series S & X were going to be leveraging those designs raw. In other words, Microsoft probably didn't have enough time to do the sort of customizations with RDNA2 the way Sony did, and bigger customizations would have required additional time they didn't have if they wanted a Fall 2020 launch for the new consoles. OTOH, software-wise, there was a lot MS could do to implement certain features and also to tie XDK API development with DX12U, that's how we got the GDK.
Again it's just a theory I have as to the development timeline of Series S & X, given some of the other things we know about the Xbox division at that time. I think prior to the S & X, they had something more "traditional" in terms of a successor to the Xbox One but I doubt it got beyond basic prototyping stage before it was shelved. And, there's yet more evidence this theory of their development timeline is accurate: the Xbox One itself was designed based on a reflection of where the 360 was at during the Kinect era (2010) and where the 360 as a platform would focus itself in trying to go more open-ended and mainstream with the media focus, becoming a COD box, etc.
That's a timescale of about 2-3 years (2010 - 2013) where most of Xbox One's development was probably compressed to, even including some planning. Then deciding at that point to go with DDR3 because they "needed" 8 GB (mainly for multimedia support) solidifies this. Although in the Xbox One's case, if there was something planned as an alternative to that system we eventually got, I doubt a lot of that design work was thrown out. It was probably integrated into features and concepts they decided upon post-2009 as the Kinect was getting ready to release and a more multimedia-focused approach was coming to the platform. Whereas with Series S & X, I think most of the concept work & whatnot pertaining to an alternative successor for XBO that came prior, was likely shelved.
Coming from the energy area I am honestly much more impressed with the XSX hardware and congratulate its engineers. In launch models, running the same games and sometimes with better performance, the XSX spends up to 27% less energy than the PS5 (here's how much power your consoles use). It's an impressive difference. That, in my opinion, reflects an excellent design. Not to mention the volume and reduced noise.
Hope that the PS5 have improved with its newest revisions.
Hope that the PS5 have improved with its newest revisions.
Last edited:
DragonNCM
Member
Stop bullshit with TF please....RTX 4090 have "100TF" compute power....& do we see big difference in graphics from 12TF PS5 & Series X .
Numbers are bullshit & they don't represent shit. If PC's with RTX4090 are using real computing power we will saw differences from PC games to console games like PS2 game vs super Nintendo game.
Numbers are bullshit & they don't represent shit. If PC's with RTX4090 are using real computing power we will saw differences from PC games to console games like PS2 game vs super Nintendo game.
MikeM
Member
Yep. On paper, my 7900xt is about 4.5x the power of a PS5. I sure as hell am not getting that kind of perf leap.
Lysandros
Member
This is due to every single component of its GPU running 18% slower than PS5's, that's to be expected. Comes at the cost of some fixed function throughput and inner bandwidth but it's still a nice plus of course.
To be fair ps4pro had a substantial advantage in peak fillrate over 1x, but the bandwidth is too low for it to do much, with very few edge cases like shadowmap rasterization.
YeulEmeralda
Member
16k resolution lol.
bitbydeath
Member
I said I was going too, I just need someone else to provide the Xbox side, and I didn’t say DF lied, they just never mentioned the differences in lighting/shadows or the fact that the resolution difference isn’t noticeable.
Last edited:
Lysandros
Member
Yes, it had 64 ROPs and double rate fp16. That is why to this day i am still baffled by Sony's decision to ship the machine with a mere 218 GB/s of V/RAM bandwidth hampering both of its strengths. Even a modest 256 GB/s would have been much better at the cost of few dollars more per BOM.
ZoukGalaxy
Member
It has the flops fore sure, about the tera I'm uncertain.
yurinka
Member
Yes, buts teraflops are more like let's say its potential, not its performance.
Series X has more teraflops than let's say PS5 but also more bottlenecks that prevent them to achieve its full potential.
Thanks to its I/O system that help solve some of the bottlenecks, PS5 gets closer to its potential to the point that in most games achieve a pretty similar or in many case better real performance than Series X.
It's the same reason of why PC with supposed same hardware specs than a PS5 don't achieve the same performance: the PCs don't have that I/O system.
Series X has more teraflops than let's say PS5 but also more bottlenecks that prevent them to achieve its full potential.
Thanks to its I/O system that help solve some of the bottlenecks, PS5 gets closer to its potential to the point that in most games achieve a pretty similar or in many case better real performance than Series X.
It's the same reason of why PC with supposed same hardware specs than a PS5 don't achieve the same performance: the PCs don't have that I/O system.
Last edited:
sendit
Member
Thought they would have learned with the Xbox One ESRAM situtation. Nope, they doubled down.
TheGodfather07
Member
The hardware is very good. Unfortunately, Microsoft don't care and can't be bothered to make good games.
??
1- DF says that the only difference is the resolution and it is information that Epic transferred to him.
2- they compare the lighting and say that XSX and PS5 are the same and only XSS shows differences/cuts in various scenes.
3- DF also says that the resolution advantage of XSX is difficult to appreciate since there is DRS.
4- It offers you in the video and comparative screenshots face to face and no difference is appreciated.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what more doubts remain...
PS . You have many videos on youtube that compare even with zoom and there are no graphic differences, neither in lighting nor in shadows.
Lysandros
Member
Though not ideal shouldn't be remotely as problematic as Xbox One's ESRAM.
Last edited:
Lysandros
Member
Most interesting thing about this chart is that RTX 4090's max compute is only ×2 of PS5's at double precision. I know it's irrelevant to game performance, but still that is funny.Only in fp32
ThaMonkeyClaw
Member
I found all of Xbox's flops!
bitbydeath
Member
YouTube compression and tiny pictures aren’t good enough evidence.??
1- DF says that the only difference is the resolution and it is information that Epic transferred to him.
2- they compare the lighting and say that XSX and PS5 are the same and only XSS shows differences/cuts in various scenes.
3- DF also says that the resolution advantage of XSX is difficult to appreciate since there is DRS.
4- It offers you in the video and comparative screenshots face to face and no difference is appreciated.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what more doubts remain...
PS . You have many videos on youtube that compare even with zoom and there are no graphic differences, neither in lighting nor in shadows.
It only takes a second for someone to capture a screen from the game, being defensive does nothing for your cause.
You are the one who has started a cause... a very ridiculous one at this point by the way.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
You’re arguing for a game you haven’t played, about a system you don’t own. That’s what’s ridiculous here.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
It has a bunch of flops, not sure about "tera" part though 
WTF!!
I have played the game on XSX and I have also seen it on my brother PS5 on a 55" LG C1 and I did not notice any difference.
You're talking bullshit at this point. It's ridiculous. According to you, the developers are lying, DF is lying, their comparison is useless, the youtube comparisons face to face (some at 4K DF video too) are useless..... I'm beginning to think that this is a joke of yours?
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
Well as they say, shit or get off the pot.WTF!!
I have played the game on XSX and I have also seen it on my brother PS5 on a 55" LG C1 and I did not notice any difference.
You're talking bullshit at this point. It's ridiculous. According to you, the developers are lying, DF is lying, their comparison is useless, the youtube comparisons face to face (some at 4K DF video too) are useless..... I'm beginning to think that this is a joke of yours?
Where I live it is said.... "When the fool starts a path, the path ends but the fool continues..."
There you with your crusade
Last edited:
chromatic9
Member
More like 5 terrible flops but there's still time yet.
bitbydeath
Member
Path hasn’t ended, you’re just afraid to continue down it, and that’s OK.Where I live it is said.... "When the fool starts a path, the path ends but the fool continues..."
There you with your crusade
We can end it there.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You know they've made other, very well reviewed, games over the last couple of years *besides* Redfall too ...
Last edited:
there was never a path, but "someone" still didn't realize it....
But OK, you are free to follow that path that only you believe continues to exist.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Well there you have it then, the devs with the most next gen engine we have so far is showing the exact difference we expect from the two consoles.
The xbox is showing it's advantage in unreal engine 5. Simple facts from the devs mouth.
Topher
Gold Member
We've been here before though. Don't be surprised if we see the same back and forth with UE5 games that we have seen all gen. And DF said very plainly that it is really hard to see any difference.
So we are back in a situation where the differences in the two versions of games are only going to even be known (except for outliers) after DF tells us they exist because we damn sure won't be able to tell on our own. And if that is the case.......who even cares?
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Exactly, it's the best for everyone. The series console sees its slight advantage In next gen engines like UE5 but in reality, no one's going to notice and they are more or less identical.
You still don't get it Fortnite is just one game & a older game at that upgraded to use UNreal Engine 5 this doesn't speak for anything but Fortnite .So far we are seeing what I expected from the consoles a back & forth depending on the design of the game.
If after everything I have told you over the last few days & even shown proof that I said it would be this way years ago & you have witnessed it all play out in front of you & still walk away with the 12 TFLOPS > 10 TFLOPS BS I'm not sure what else to tell you
Things are actually leaning towards PS5 strong points going forward as games start to stream more data on the fly .
In Cold Blood
Banned
That's just going to create a 10 page war.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Viking Warrior
Member
Mesh shaders were not created to replace the existing geometry pipeline, due to the optimizations in the traditional Vertex pipeline Mesh shaders are actually slower than using the geometry pipeline in many cases. Mesh shaders were meant to complement the existing pipeline, not to replace it, you will never see a time when all games are made using Mesh shaders exclusively, this is a pipe dream.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
This generation has proved that Teraflops, within a certain range (of less than 30%), are basically nothing more than a marketing gimmick. And I believe that's what Microsoft was chasing with Xbox Series X.
I don't get the feeling that Series X was made to be efficiently produced from a cost or performance standpoint. They wanted to get a bigger number than Sony. They felt that if they did, it would convince the console audience to shift just like it did during the PS4 era when PS4 was more popular. They would then somehow get a "pincer" movement with the Series S so they could attract price conscious consumers.
Clearly, that marketing strategy was a big failure. PS5 runs most games better despite "only" being 10 TF. We can speculate why, but IMHO it simply signals to me that Sony found that their approach to the clock speeds, unified RAM, and lower level software access simply enabled a console that could achieve better results than a brute force 12 TF with a lot of headscratching memory and software decisions.
As a result, Sony struck the right balance of cost and power, delivering what in "reality" has been the "world's most powerful console where it counts" at an attractive price of $399 starting. Cost conscious consumers in the console market are not as important as they used to be. I feel like this is the "Apple effect" taking hold for consumer purchases of consoles - sort of like, this is my primary gaming machine for the next 5+ years, I'd gladly pay up for the product I want.
I don't get the feeling that Series X was made to be efficiently produced from a cost or performance standpoint. They wanted to get a bigger number than Sony. They felt that if they did, it would convince the console audience to shift just like it did during the PS4 era when PS4 was more popular. They would then somehow get a "pincer" movement with the Series S so they could attract price conscious consumers.
Clearly, that marketing strategy was a big failure. PS5 runs most games better despite "only" being 10 TF. We can speculate why, but IMHO it simply signals to me that Sony found that their approach to the clock speeds, unified RAM, and lower level software access simply enabled a console that could achieve better results than a brute force 12 TF with a lot of headscratching memory and software decisions.
As a result, Sony struck the right balance of cost and power, delivering what in "reality" has been the "world's most powerful console where it counts" at an attractive price of $399 starting. Cost conscious consumers in the console market are not as important as they used to be. I feel like this is the "Apple effect" taking hold for consumer purchases of consoles - sort of like, this is my primary gaming machine for the next 5+ years, I'd gladly pay up for the product I want.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Sony's libraries and development tools are the best in the industry. Devs are very familiar with it from the PS4 generation.
It's no secret that DX12U is newer and has teething issues. You can see this not only with the Xbox, but PC releases have also sucked arse
It may come back to issues with the GDK, not sure.