| DonFerrari said: You are wrong. They said the system can always run in boost mode. It will drop frequency if the game in question doesn't require that power. |
Yeah, it's not the same "boost mode" as a PC's GPU, it can maintain the increased clocks indefinitely.
| JRPGfan said: 10,3 vs 12,15 However the GPU parts of the Playstation 5, run at higher speeds. Ram 520 GB/s vs 448 GB/s = ~14% However I dont think it ll matter, both will run 4k games. |
Keep in mind that the Xbox Series X has some extra customization done under the hood to offload processing to dedicated silicon.
| DonFerrari said: For me Sony solution (including SSD 3rd party slot, dedicated 3D audio chip, decompression chip, etc) seemed like a very smart trade off on small quantity of power for big gains in price and dimension. |
It's not a dedicated chip, it's running on a "customized" CU.
Microsoft's approach I *think* is relying on a similar implementation or a dedicated pipeline on the GPU as well.
But don't quote me on that.
Either way, both approaches need access to the GPU in order to do positional audio... And this is an amazing thing, it's probably the largest leap in audio capabilities in generations... Probably since the original Xbox with the nVidia sound storm solution.
| JRPGfan said: 3.8ghz vs 3.5ghz = ~7.9% differnce in cpu speeds. It shouldn't be close to a 30% differnce, its looking more like a less than 15% thingy. |
Er. Clockspeed isn't a denominator for gauging performance, just like flops, just like bits.
The entire industry got educated on this with the Pentium 4... Or at-least I had thought.
We haven't got any detailing on caches and so-on, so performance could be 10-20% different, we don't know yet, we also don't know what the CPU clockrate can sustain if the GPU is pegged at 100%.
| JRPGfan said: In that case, Xbox won the design choices imo. 256bit bus vs 320bit bus = ~25% differnce. |
Here we go again...
More CU's isn't always more expensive than less CU's. It's a balancing act.
You actually do reduce the amount of workable chips the higher in clockrates and voltages you go, so a smaller chip with a higher clockrate can be just as/more expensive than a larger chip with a lower clockrate. Dem the facts.
The memory bus is a legitimate extra cost however as the wider bus means more PCB layers and complex routing plus more memory controllers on the APU itself.
| drkohler said: PS5 and XSX seem to have the same number of ROPs. So PS5 is 2.25/1.825 times faster than XSX. PS5 and XSX seem to have the same geometry engines. So PS5 is 2.25/1.825 times faster than XSX. Gpu cache access in the PS5 is 2.25/1.825 times faster than XSX (this is a big thing for RT). |
We don't know that yet. Wait to see how AMD couples Geometry and ROPS when they launch RDNA2 GPU's on PC or when Sony/Microsoft release their complete technical information on their APU's.
| Captain_Yuri said: XSX has 10GB of Vram at 560GB/s and 6GB at 336GB/s vs Ps5's all 16GB at 448GB/s. It will be interesting to see how games perform as more and more Vram gets used cause in theory, if a game needs more than 10GB of Vram, the ps5 might be a bit of an advantage depending on the situation. |
Nah.
| derpysquirtle64 said: We don't know about ROPs yet. And the "higher clock is better" thing seemed to work great for Xbox One which had 12 CUs at 853 MHz vs PS4's 18CUs at 800 MHz |
The Xbox One did have less Render Output Pipelines, Less Texture Mapping Units, Less Geometry Units, Less Shader Units... So the added clockspeed didn't give it an advantage in any scenario except in CPU tasks due to the CPU clock.
| Bristow9091 said: Based purely on numbers alone the PS5 is <15% weaker/slower/whatever than the XSX, but has a much faster SSD which could help close the gap or something? I mean, I was expecting to the XSX to be the more powerful console anyway, which I'm sort of hoping means the PS5 will be the cheaper of the two. |
Without a doubt the Xbox Series X is the superior console in regards to performance, that isn't up for debate or to be questioned.
The questionable part is... By how much?
| CuCabeludo said: The bad news is a SSD that matches PS5 standards still don't exist, maybe they appear by the next year. |
Please don't spread bullshit.
http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/nvme/corsair-mp600-pcie-4-0-nvme-ssd-review-1tb/
The PC has SSD's that match and beat the Playstation 5's SSD.
| Hiku said: PS5 also has a smaller sized SSD. |
A chunk of that SSD could be spare area.
| CuCabeludo said: AMD custom made the GPU and CPU for each console. They only share the same architechture (navi 2/rdna 2). |
Semi-Custom. Not Custom.
| JRPGfan said: Switch is clearly alot weaker than the base PS4 model (probably like you say 4.5x). enough with the derailing Nu-13, its not a switch thread. |
Explain how flops matter. Do it. I dare you.
| JRPGfan said: Switch is 397 Gflops (0,397 Tflops docked) |
The Switch is based on an nVidia Maxwell GPU, do you know how much more efficient Maxwell is over Graphics Core Next 1.0?
| ArchangelMadzz said: Both consoles ram could be higher, but do people really want BC for PS3/2/1 That badly? I had all those consoles but PS4 BC is all I care about as I still have those games. Suppose you could use PS Now for PS3 games but that doesn't really interest me. |
Me and CGI called it a few years ago that the likely RAM capacity was going to be around 16GB due to cost/performance reasons.
| DonFerrari said: Several of the points speaked were on line of reducing the load on the RAM and texture filling it up. But sure I would also liked more. But again PS goes the unified RAM and Xbox two different pools. |
The Xbox actually has a single memory pool, it's just got certain memory spaces with differing performance which is also exposed in software.
| dharh said: This. There is no reason to assume that older PS games _can't_ be emulated. I rather suspect that PSN/PS1/PS2 will be what it has been on the PS4, assuming they need to/can renegotiate licenses for the PS5. If they make a disc emulator so you can just pop in PS1/PS2 discs and have them work, I will be super surprised. I still highly doubt PS3 BC disc or downloads, but maybe just maybe the PS5 fast/powerful enough to emulate the PS3. |
The Playstation 4 is fast enough to emulate the Playstation 3, if they bothered to take a similar approach to emulation as Microsoft.
The Playstation 5 would have no issues with a more brute-force approach, the Cell isn't THAT powerful or complex relative to what we have today.
Sony just has less software engineers that could work on the problem, Microsoft is a software powerhouse with some of the best software engineers on the planet.
| DonFerrari said: “We had to bake some of the backwards compatibility support into the [Xbox One] silicon.” Considering the first back-compat 360 games didn’t hit Xbox One until 2015, that’s mightily impressive foresight. https://www.gamesradar.com/how-xbox-one-x-emulation-technology-is-helping-to-resurrect-the-last-two-generations-of-xbox-classics-in-4k/
Perhaps he was surprised at how well they made it or perhaps there is some misleading between the baked in being specifically for BC or something they were able to make use. (Like when I said the 3D audio chip in PS5 working like SPE then perhaps it could be used to BS PS3). |
The baked aspects were things like texture formats and so forth, Microsoft did plan on making the Xbox One backwards compatible with Xbox 360 titles before the console launched, no doubt.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
