Unreal 5 Demo vs Series X Reveal

[Pemalite]

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Unreal Engine 5 is being optimized for 60fps

Epic China says you don't need PS5's SSD to run the demo, decent SSDs will do just fine.

Thanks.

By the way it is from the reddit.
The original video has very low views and low ratings.
Besides, Can you understand Chinese?

P.M 　Do you really believe that the PS5 performs less than a laptop PC?

Depends on the laptop PC.

GeForce RTX 2080 Super Max-Q would give the PS5 a run for it's money... You also have desktop replacement laptops with full Geforce RTX 2080's in them and in 6 months time, probably RTX 3080's.

But the demo in question isn't using the consoles to their fullest extent, the Ray Tracing cores aren't being utilized which is extra computational capability left on the table.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

Wait a minute.
Why is the PS5 GPU performing less than the mobile RTX 2080?
RDNA2's performance should be greater than RDNA1.
At least above the 5700XT and should be equivalent to the RTX2080.
In addition, the performance efficiency is different in pc and the console.
Even in the same part the console has much better performance.

You just quote someone else,can you really explain it?

We don't know how RDNA2 performs, the hardware isn't on the market, we can only assume (And rightly so) that it will be more performant than RDNA1.

The RTX 2080 is a beast... This particular demo wasn't optimized for the hardware either, which is the key thing here... That it looks and runs that well without being optimized fully is a testament to how solid the console hardware is right now.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

I don't know why you compare the RTX2080 with the 5700XT.
It should be mobile 2080.
The PS5 GPU has a 10.3TF performance because the clock is very high.
Even at 36CU, it is more powerful than the 5700XT.

Not all notebooks use the mobile variant of the RTX 2080, they sometimes use the desktop variant.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

Remember your first post?

The laptop runs at 40fps+ in the demo.
PS5 runs at 30fps.

That's a gap of at least 33%.

There is no such gap between RDNA 2 10.3TF and mobile 2080.

More to performance than just flops. nVidia's gaming performance on a per-flop basis is better than AMD's.

But if flops was the most important aspect of the hardware, then the Xbox Series X would be 20% faster than the Playstation 5... But it simply isn't.

Flops in this sense is entirely theoretical, not real world... And most people do not even understand how it relates to the games rendering anyway, making it an irrelevant talking point.

hinch said:
Actually a bit sketchy thinking about it. The PS5 GPU should faster than 5700XT, which in turn should be more powerful than a RTX2070 Super.

I would take that statement with a grain of salt. A hearsay from some Chinese source / forums doesn't bring much confidence.

But anyway getting offtopic lol.

It's probably accurate with the current un-optimized build of that demo.
EPIC isn't going to invest years and 100's of millions to build a demo remember.

SvennoJ said:

Only half as fast as the PS5 SSD in raw speed under optimal conditions.
Of course PS5 can also benefit from compression upping the data rate to 9 GB/S while directly reading into video memory.
For some reason my SSD suffers greatly from random access, perhaps that's normal or a windows thing?

It's much faster than the HDD at least which has it's own quirks. (Why is writing faster than reading?)
But it's obvious that random access is a death sentence for HDDs.

Anyway if this is a decent SSD (I don't know) then the ps5 is at least 3 times faster and can bypass reading things first to normal ram to transfer them through to vram afterwards.

Random reads/writes and sequential writes are also always slower than sequential reads. The Playstaton 5 is no exception.

I think you are starting to get an idea that it's not as black-and-white as Sony/Microsoft/Non-tech literate people are trying to portray it as...

But the reason why SSD writes are slower than reads is down to the fundamental technology itself.

An SSD cannot "overwrite" data on the SSD, they need to perform an erase operation before initiating the write and this costs time... Impacting performance.

But when you have a fresh SSD and all the cells are empty, it doesn't need to perform that erase first, this will increase performance, but it will still be slower than a read, the reason for that... Is the SSD works on a "page system" so if a page is 2kb, the page is 4kb, so the SSD does it's best job to pair up two 2kb pieces of data to fit onto the 4kb page and will often juggle around data, this can also cost time.

The SSD also has it's own database essentially that keeps track of where all that data is being written, after a write has been performed the SSD needs to update that database which also takes time.
Then you have things like wear leveling algorithms which tries to ensure that the read-write cycles even out of the entire SSD, which means for random reads/writes the data may be physically located on the opposite sides of the SSD... And that is where the laws of physics steps in, it takes time for the controller to send/receive data the further away it is. - It's not as pronounced as a mechanical hard drive, but it's still there.

This is the "dumbed down" version essentially. - The issue itself is dubbed "Write amplification"

Allot of engineering goes into SSD's to work around the problem with Ram caches, wear leveling, TRIM, data compression/duplication and more... Heck some SSD's will place some sets of data into groups depending on how often they get read/write.

kirby007 said:

but the compression is a software thing right? thats not specific to a SSD or HDD

There are PC SSD's that employ hardware-based compression algorithms on the actual controller.

PC can also brute force it via software, because it has the CPU and Memory resources to do so.

derpysquirtle64 said:

It's kinda mind blowing that laptop SSDs less than 10 year old were not that much better than HDDs. My 2011 MacBook Air had read speed just around 120MB/s but it was one of the first laptops that adopted SSD as far as I remember.

The biggest advantages that SSD's brought to notebooks was lower power consumption, increasing battery life, reliability as there is no spinning parts that could be bumped/broken and those low access times, making the system much more responsive.

I was an early adopter of SSD's, had them for about 12 years now in my PC's, back then the sequential reads weren't that much better than a Western Digital Black/VelociRaptor, but those access times made all the difference.

eva01beserk said:
I dont want to talk a bout leaks and rumors but it seems worth to no one from moores law is dead. Since he got the nvidia line up right and other stuff.

But the consoles are gona bitch slap the rtx 2080ti. Even the 3060 will out perform the 2080ti. Aparantly the rt features in the rtx line up is so bad that even if rasterasation is better on the card, as soon as rt is enable everything is just gona smack even the rtx 2080ti.

Rtx line up is gona age like milk. So that 2080 laptop beating the ps5 rumor sounds fishy.

I would hope the consoles beat an RTX 2080Ti. (Although there is currently no evidence to support your assertion!)
But the 2080Ti will be outdated before the next-gen consoles launched anyway.

The RT features aren't bad either. They are fantastic... So much so that AMD is going to copy that feature and bring it to consoles.