| DonFerrari said: Actually several devs have said ignore the specs datasheet, PS5 is a very strong machine and isn't lagging behind Xbox. And what journalists and bloggers being obnoxous have anything to do with? |
The Playstation 5 is certainly "lagging behind" in multiple aspects compared to the Xbox Series X and even PC.
And the Xbox Series X is certainly "lagging behind" in other aspects.
We need the games to finally put the debates to rest... Because the constant mud flinging is getting rather boring at this point, it's the same arguments, different day.
The Playstation 5 is more than just the "SSD". And the Xbox Series X is more than just the "Teraflops" but people aren't willing to put them into the appropriate perspectives or contexts.
They are both solid pieces of well-rounded hardware that deserve praise... Unlike this console generation the consoles aren't running with a moderate amount of Ram (With a large % taken away from games for the OS), Mid-range GPU and a low-end Tablet CPU relative to the PC, everything sits a notch higher, this is a good thing.
| Soundwave said: XSX having a 52 CU GPU is simply going to outperform 36 CU GPU when both are basically the same thing. I hope MS allows for overclocking even, then the disparity will become more and more obvious. |
If the Playstation 5 has the same number of Geometry Units as the Xbox Series X, then it's geometry throughput could potentially be greater as it's Geometry Unit x Clockrate.
The Playstation 5 has a higher MPixel fillrate than the Xbox Series X as both feature the same number of Render Output Pipelines... And MPixel is a function of ROP x Clockrate.
So whilst on paper more "CU's" seems like the answer to all the worlds ills... It's not always as simple as the raw numbers would otherwise imply.
Now without a doubt the Xbox Series X does have the GPU compute edge and by a significant amount, especially as we don't actually know what the sustained GPU clockrate of the Playstation 5's GPU is when the entire system is loaded 100%.
| HollyGamer said: When games are design in traditional way (no data streaming like UE 5 or future rendering technique) games will run slightly better on Xbox SX (probably slightly better resolution or frame rates). But if games are design with new philosophy and next gen rendering tech where data streaming on real time is crucial (frame by frame) like UE 5 , then games will run worst in Xbox SX or slower and will have pop up in LOD, or worst it will not run at all. Developer need to modified the engine to run on Xbox SX so GPU do more GPU calculation instead depend on real time data streaming like PS5. In the end both are great machine which has plus and minus, one have advantage than the other in one aspect and vice versa, So now it depent on how developer harness the technical side of thing from both. |
Bit of a stretch to assume the Xbox Series X isn't as proficient in streaming assets from SSD, there could be additional details on this front that hasn'e been elaborated upon, Microsoft, like Sony have invested allot in the technology that backs up the SSD... Which is actually the most important aspects rather than the "raw" GB/s in the spec sheets.
| hinch said: Difference is around 15% or thereabouts in GPU. Its negligible in the grand scheme of overall system performance. XBX will have a slight edge in compute and will have better hardware raytracing capabilities. PS5 will have superior I/O. Both consoles have their advantages. I'm personally more excited on what much better I/O can bring to the table and what Sony 1st party devs can do with it. |
20% advantage on the GPU for the Xbox Series X in some scenarios, 20% advantage for the Playstation 5 for the GPU in other scenarios.
The Xbox Series X also has an impressive I/O with allot of investment in compression and data management.
Wait for the games... As I feel like people are clinging to a single aspect of these consoles, running with a set narrative and proclaiming it's like the second coming.
A console is an entire *system* not just a singular component and different games rely on different aspects of the hardware, some games will want more out of the CPU, some will want more out of the GPU, some games will employ lots of Alpha effects and need more memory bandwidth... And some games will rely more intensively on asset streaming.
The SSD isn't going to suddenly make the Playstation 5 the definitive place to play every game release, some games will definitely have some noticeable advantages however and some games will have noticeable disadvantages.
Xbox Series X or Playstation 5, there isn't a wrong purchasing decision... At the end of the day, you should base your purchase on the games you wish to play.
| HollyGamer said: UE 5 is the prove of this, but you are right, no games use this tech yet. We will have to wait and see. But on paper and developer notes next gen PC games and multiplat will require more RAM to overcome this problem or an SSD. Or a very powerful GPU and CPU to brute force the lack of IO speed. Of course next gen games will be available 2 to 3 years after next gen console released, from now on only 1rts party developer will use that benefit especially SOny first party (Xbox will focus on cross gen for another 2 years). |
More CPU/GPU doesn't make up for slower I/O, unless you are doing something like procedural generation that relies heavily on CPU/GPU generation algorithms or some such.
The Xbox Series X unlike the PC however... Has the same amount of Ram as the Playstation 5, so it will need to rely on streaming assets into memory where-as the PC can dump more data into memory to start with and be less reliant on storage speeds. - That's the main difference between PC and consoles next gen.
I think I speak for everyone though when we can finally get rid of load times and get back to the "instant play" that we had back in the Nintendo 64 era.
| HollyGamer said: I think the lack of knowledge on game development and on lack of info on how this new paradigm will affecting game development, resulting on many people doubt SSD/IO will change a lot of thing. Even many PS fans (i also had my doubt back in 2019 ) still not understand the important of IO and SSD. Hell most of them are PC, PS fans, Xbox fans , and Nintendo fans who don't have time to do some research will still think " Teraflop " is still the most important factor. Glad i am doing my own research and glad a lot of Youtube videos explained this. |
The Switch, WiiU, Wii, 3DS and so forth had solid state storage. It might only be cheap shit emmc or in a carts case... ROM, but it was still solid state.
I/O is important, it's always been important, mechanical hard drives and consoles stagnated for a couple of generations... And the PC only increased marginally on this front over time.
If storage increased at the same rate as Ram bandwidth since the Nintendo 64 we would be running with SSD's that offered 280GB/s... Which is nuts. That would mean storage would offer sufficient memory bandwidth to handle 1440P resolutions. (Latency and other factors not withstanding of course.)
In saying that, storage isn't a replacement for super fast Ram, it helps, but systems have a tier of memories ranging from smallest, lowest latency, highest bandwidth with L1/L0 caches to largest and slowest hard drives/ssd.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
