By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
chakkra said:
DonFerrari said:

So you got your understanding wrong, yes XSX will be more powerful. But the higher clock benefits more than the higher CU count (look DF analysis), surely it won't cover the difference of CUs that large (36 vs 52 or something like that). PS5 won't have problem with temperature, it will work the same on the fridge or hot cabinet. The fluctuation on the frequency will be small percentage to up to 10% saving on power consumption, because power will be constant (as will be heat generation on the unit) so when you get near the limit on CPU it may drop the GPU a little.

Proper reveal haven't occured yet if we look at the number of people reacting and hyping to both. But yes I do expect formal reveal and 1st party games for Xbox to be much better this time around.

For the life of me I do not understand how Mark Cerny managed to convince people of this BS when we have decades of graphics cards comparisons that prove quite the opposite.

Bigger GPUs with more CUs have ALWAYS performed better than smaller GPUs with higher Clock speeds. ALWAYS.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11180/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review

Now, with that being said, after seeing the effects of SSDs on PCs I think that the much faster SSD on the PS5 will help it close the gap between them and might even outperform the XSX in some scenarios. But if it does, is going to be because of that and not because of this "smaller chips with higher clock perform better than bigger chips with lower clock speed" bs.

Digital Foundry didn't disagree on Mark Cerny.

Also what reason would Sony have to choose less CUs with higher frequency (and much higher than what could be expected, and one that makes dies harder to make and cooling also harder to achieve)? Just for the giggles? I hope you don't come with a they decided to put the boost last week because of Xbox being much stronger or "because they are dumb".



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."