By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 05 July 2019
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
EricHiggin said:

While it's possible that Cerny was playing it super safe, based on where GCN was headed in terms of TF calculated performance, 8TF seems unbelievably low for the PS5, without knowing that the Navi GPU you're going to be using is likely to land around that calculated performance with RDNA. This was probably a hint way back, but also PR to smear XB1X even though it wouldn't be lying technically. Smart PR though because he could have said 12TF basing it off of old GCN, while potentially causing PS a headache later on if the PS5 launched with less than that, which is very well possible if not likely at this point.

I don't think 8 Teraflops is low at all.
I think why Teraflops wasn't mentioned earlier before RDNA became a "thing" was for this very reason, flops is irrelevant and they can't use it for marketing (like bits!) forever.

It seems low if you're still on 'GCN time' and would be expecting something closer to 12TF, and much like you mentioned, many don't understand the nitty gritty of a GPU and how it relates to the TF calculation. Cerny did mention it though, followed later by the 8.4TF FP16 remark, and MS kept hammering home 6TF, so whether or not PS and Cerny want to fight that PR battle going into next gen who knows, but they likely kept it in mind. The Pro being 4.2TF and the 5700 Navi series being around 8TF along with it's pricing, seems a little too coincidental if you ask me. Knowing where XB1X ended up and how MS isn't even hinting at Scarlett GPU performance, since it might be around 8TF as well, to where GCN would've been headed next in terms of calculated TF performance, it's hard not to see different strategies for both in there. Flops probably can't continue to be the main marketing focus as long as the GPU industry doesn't make major changes in the coming years.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

From more of a tech perspective, the Flops in general mean very little yes. It's just a ballpark figure, which is typically used to compare models within a series, or gaming performance for most casuals. It really only matters if it's an extremely direct comparison, which almost never is the case, be it from one iteration to the next or between brands. Even worse when considerable changes are finally made to the arch. While this message is being pushed more, to your typical casual gamer, it's meaningless for the most part. The best seller and the price matter way more, which should come from the best balance of tech and games.

It's not even a ballpark figure, it's a theoretical denominator that is simply unachievable in the real world... Otherwise there wouldn't be a constant race to making chip designs more efficient every year...
I mean GPU's with more flops can end up slower than a GPU with less flops.
For example the Radeon 5870 @2.72 Teraflops is slower than the Radeon 7850 @ 1.76 Teraflops. - Almost 1 Teraflop less, but sometimes faster by almost 50%... And they have the same amount of bandwidth too. (153GB/s)
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1062?vs=1076

Not to mention, the majority of people have absolutely no idea how FLOPS even pertains to the rendering of a games world anyway.

Theoretical denominator may be a better way to describe it, but I don't know how you can say it's not even a ballpark figure. While it's an approximation, it depends on what you're comparing it to. You could say the GCN TF is 'too high', or you could say the CUDA TF is 'too low'. The 5000 series and the 7000 series aren't designed to be directly comparable, so comparing them using TF is going to steer you off course immediately from the get go. Making your designs more efficient would help to sell your GPU to companies looking to sell products like laptops, and sales overall in a world where electricity prices are rising and becoming a concern. Not to mention the sound created by fans to remove the inefficient heat created, or cost to go to a water block.

Yes, most people who buy consoles don't understand much more than the numbers put in front of their face, like much it costs, how well it performs, and how many it sells, on paper, which are what matter in order to sell mass numbers of the product.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

It's getting much tougher to sell someone on your hardware based on the games themselves visually. Trying to prove it through video is extremely tough today for so many reasons. Like for one, how do you prove your 4k box is better than their 4k box, when your 4k video can only be viewed by many at 1080p online? A bigger TF number is a much easier and simpler way of 'proving' that, even though it doesn't mean all that much. For a consumer who doesn't have the time or knowledge or ability to know the difference, specs matter more and more, especially if you can't actually outsell your cheaper 'inferior' competition.

Downsampling/Supersampling means that 4k can look better on a 1080P display than native 1080P content on a 1080P display.
We are far from the point of photorealism in gaming even at 720P... Which means it's still possible to showcase differences.

The real crutch is that the Xbox and Playstation consoles are getting closer and closer in terms of capability that it's really unimportant unless you are an enthusiast... And let's face it, if you gave that much of a shit about hardware, chances are that you are part of the PC Gaming Master Race anyway.

Who understands this though, and why isn't it what's being pushed in marketing instead of 4k? How many people take the time to watch the review and comparison video's for a bunch of different games, vs how many just spend a few minutes looking up specs and sales or flat out take whatever they're told by friends as gospel?

People in general don't want to get screwed. If it looks like they are getting the better deal, many will just roll with it, without taking the time to understand whether it's just marketing BS or not. Pro and XB1X which were apparently supposed to keep gamers from going to PC (more so Pro), weren't marketed as the 'world's most powerful console' for nothing. The closer the hardware becomes in terms of capability, the more creative marketing needs to get with the numbers. Either that or they have to both stop focusing on the hardware PR, but is either going to trust the other to do that? Right now, while MS may be more willing to do so, PS can't really because their present direction still requires selling plenty of hardware.