-
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.
- Status
MasterCornholio
Member
Oh wow so that's what the delay is for.
FunkMiller
Member
Pretty much par for the course in Darwin, to be fair. It’s hotter than the surface of the sun, wetter than an otter’s pocket, and everything hates you.
FunkMiller
Member
This is just excellent in every conceivable way. A veritable masterpiece.
Why So Series S.
Attack the argument, not the person.
If you’re also here just to drop short hottakes and bait, let me know right now.
This goes for everyone.
Empire Strikes Back
Member
I don’t think MS is gonna do $599. Sure Sony still has PTSD from the PS3, but seriously, have MS not take any lesson from that generation? I could see this working if Lockhart was like a diskless XSX at $499 but not this way.
sircaw
Banned
VFXVeteran
Banned
sircaw
Banned
Last edited:
ArcaneNLSC
Member
saintjules
Member
I guess what I would say is that I wouldn't totally rule out the possibility for either Console. MS / Sony still not revealing prices feels like 'bad news'. Depends on who you ask though.
We're in the middle of August now and still nothing.
Last edited:
sircaw
Banned
ArcaneNLSC
Member
Wraith Phantom
Member
How can they use unreal 5. If Epic are still collaborating & building it with Playstation. Sucks for team green. Playstation even have timed exclusivity on game engines.
Last edited:
VFXVeteran
Banned
You are thinking at the later stages of the rendering pipeline but ignoring the middle stages where framebuffers have to have discrete pixel resolution to do any lighting/shading on.
RT reflections is the least costly RT feature. It probably only takes up maybe 5% of the overall screen given it's probably bound ONLY on surfaces with high specular contribution. In short, reflections aren't going to be enough to push a game's visuals to new heights (Battlefield 5 had only RT reflections). It will be interesting to see if the consoles will have enough power to implement full GI and ambient occlusion using ray-tracing - which takes up a LOT more of the portion of scene rendering.
Last edited:
sircaw
Banned
VFXVeteran
Banned
Can you argue reasonably or do you have to resort to insults because you can't argue with any sort of knowledge in graphics pipelines?
Empire Strikes Back
Member
While Minecraft RTX is incredible, SEUS shaders (some of them feature Path Tracing) are much more pleasant to the eye. At least IMO.
VFXVeteran
Banned
Epic isn't building UE5 on the PS5. They are building it with a PC dev machine (like they've always done). Producing that demo for PS5 using UE5 has nothing to do with how they are developing UE5 itself.
VFXVeteran
Banned
What's SEUS?
Empire Strikes Back
Member
Sonic Ether’s Unbelievable Shaders. It’s a dude who make shaders for Minecraft.
MasterCornholio
Member
This puts it in to perspective
Haven't seen that video yet but I'm guessing it's based off this.
Mr Moose
Member
By-mission
Member
Yes, this is the point ... I am not spreading rumors, but it is something that really makes you think, why not even Craig is running in the Series X, I mean, imagine Mrs. Sony showing God of War in the same conditions and after some time SM says that "this was on the PC" I'm just saying something is wrong ...
Taking advantage of the subject, this silence on the part of Sony is killing me .. I understand perfectly well that they are waiting for Microsoft's moves, it is the great benefit of being in the lead, but they need to be so quiet?
VFXVeteran
Banned
Yea, Sony has been too quiet and that bothers me too.
This puts it in to perspective
This is "PS5 struggles with 1080p60" level of stupidity. He's basically assuming that the XSX SSD will be bottlenecked the same way as a PC?
Look, we still don't know to what extent the I/O on the Series X has been engineered to remove bottlenecks (and probably didn't go into the same extend as the PS5), but I think it's safe to assume it will be better than the ancient I/O system on PC.
Last edited:
BlueXImpulse
Banned
This video is really well done. Sony were wise to invest in better storage. It will keep them relevant into the latter stages of the gen
ArcaneNLSC
Member
Haven't seen that video yet but I'm guessing it's based off this.
Kinda but a comparison to the xbox and a samsung 970 evo
By-mission
Member
Looking through this prism makes a lot more sense! This is a great argument, thanks for sharing
Last edited:
Empire Strikes Back
Member
I expect something to happen next week. It may be just an impression, but every week something new about the PS5 appears whether is small things like Accessories’ compatibility, etc. or events/game reveals like SoP. Sony can literally hype the HDMI port reveal... And probably get everyone here and the Internet talking about HDMI the whole week.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
This puts it in to perspective
This graphic is a great example of how disingenuous that video is, regardless of what side of the fence you are on.
Unless this YT personality is claiming to have direct access to these units, with hands on real-world numbers (risky with NDAs and all that), the graphic is intended to represent the only three numbers we have on the console drives. Not sure how the desktop drive fits in the equation there.
The numbers we have:
Theoretical Max Decompression Performance: PS5 22GB/s XSX 6GB/s
Expected Average Decompression Performance: PS5 9GB/s XSX 4.8GB/s
Raw Throughput (presumably sequential read?): PS5 5.5GB/s XSX 2.4GB/s
This information can not be quantified in the graphic as drawn, no matter how you try and square it.
Just a little pet peeve I have when charts start to get real Trumpian, can't help it.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Aside from a single de-compressor the I/O on the XSX is pretty straightforward by all accounts. MS made a bigger deal out of the name "XVA" than the details themselves, without going into any interesting detail aside from the basics. The only demo they showed was the one where State of Decay takes 11/12 seconds to load, which I think is around the same you get on a 970 evo on PC. Either way it's lackluster.
Last edited:
VFXVeteran
Banned
This is a pet peeve of mine too. As we start seeing footage of the PS5, no where is any developer touting the SSD in helping make graphics LOOK better.
Last edited:
zaitsu
Banned
I would say that even eliminating pop ins would make graphic look better.
ArcaneNLSC
Member
He did state this was based on known information until we know exactly what xbox I/O system is to the degree what Cerny explained for the PS5
Darius87
Member
there's no need to know gfx pipelines to see that HFB looks better then HZD otherway sony would not even approve/invest
in the project if guerrilla decided to use last gen HZD decima engine to make sequel.
Vaztu
Member
Correct, but Epic did say they had to re-code parts of UE5 due to PS5's fast IO.
Shmunter
Member
Look better, yes. Unlock more GPU rendering, no.
Games can look better because art can be interchanged faster than previously leading to effectively a ram multiplier. But the GPU will always remain within its hardware constraints and low level feature set as you point out. The ssd has no influence over that or effectively creating More GPU.
Last edited:
My reaction score has finally got ahead of yours, Your toast.
Lightweight
/select user sircaw
/reset reaction score
/confirm
/y
Darius87
Member
MasterCornholio
Member
It's why I think Sony worked so closely with them. They need other developers to take advantage of the I/O so making sure UE supports it makes sense.
lepermessiah
Member
The best use of ray tracing is on Spence's brick buns mmm
Handy Fake
Member
Varnish La PS
Member
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Mr Moose
Member
I think the order is audio / shadows / reflections / GI / full. I think bounce lighting is fairly expensive(?).wrong again master sensei. unless you see things in reverse.
BlueXImpulse
Banned
Fast SSD = More developer freedom and less headache = More focus being put on actually designing an interesting world and not on whether they need to hide asset loading or not = Less "just-in-case" assets in memory and more memory to use on shit you will actually definitely see = Better looking games
VFXVeteran
Banned
there's no need to know gfx pipelines to see that HFB looks better then HZD otherway sony would not even approve/invest
Ok. I'm going to tell you this and you can take it or leave it. Your choice.
You stating that it subjectively looks better and then assuming that a brand new graphics engine was made in order to make it look better subjectively is about the weakest argument I've ever heard. It shows your extreme bias to want to "MAKE" the game look next-gen just because that's what YOU want.
We can't have a conversation if that's your stance. Graphics engines aren't built all over again just because a new piece of hardware comes onto the scene. You must remember that the tech you are seeing in the next-gen consoles isn't new at all. They have been around for years on the PC from AMD/Nvidia graphics cards. The ONLY claim to new tech hardware is the SSD and it's subsystems. There is literally NO new tech in the GPU end of things. Consoles will ALWAYS be the lowest common denominator concerning graphics tech. You just need to get over in your head that everything Sony makes doesn't mean the latest and greatest in technology in a mere $500 box.
Having said that, HZD looks damn near 100% like HFW. I observe all the shaders, lighting, and geometry. There is literally nothing in HFW that shows it can't be implemented on a PS4 Pro. The only thing we can't see is the SCOPE of the game design for the sequel. That could very well mean it can't run on last-gen. But it's NOT going to be graphics implementations. At least not from the small cinematic that we've seen - which is ALL we can go by.
Last edited:
Knitted Knight
Banned
- Status