JRPGfan said:
hinch said:
I would recommend a watch of From Bedrooms to Billions documentary. Which goes through PS history. Sony back in the pre PS1 era (Ken Kuturagi) built the original PlayStation on the back of the feedback, set from big third party developers. Much like Cerny did the same with the PS5, as explained in the Road to PS5.
I still find it fascinating that a GPU with 256-bit bus and lower compute can keep up with a 320-bit one with higher CU's and slightly higher CPU speed/s.
|
XSX has a ~18% lead in GPU theorical peak performance (in calculations), and a ~2,85% lead in CPU frequency.
XSX has more Texture Mapping units, more Shader units, but PS5 runs them at a higher speed.
|
PS5 |
XSX |
Difference |
Notes: |
| CPU Clock (dual threaded) GHz |
3.5 |
3.6 |
-2.85% |
| GPU Clock (MHz) |
2233 |
1825 |
22.35% |
|
| Shading Units |
2304 |
3328 |
-44.44% |
|
| Texture Mapping Units |
144 |
208 |
-44.44% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Triangles (billion/sec) |
8.92 |
7.3 |
22.19% |
4 Primitive Units x clock speed |
| Triangles Culled (billion/sec) |
17.84 |
14.6 |
22.19% |
(Each Primitive unit can cull two primitives) x clock speed |
| Pixel Rate (GPixel/s) via the ROPS |
142.9 |
116.8 |
22.34% |
Clock speed x 64 ROPS (Render output unit) |
| Texture Rate (GTexel/s) |
321.6 |
379.6 |
-18.03% |
Clock speed x TMU's (Texture mapping unit) |
| FP32 (float) performance |
10.29 |
12.15 |
-18.07% |
|
| GPU Cache Speed (MHz) |
2233 |
1825 |
22.35% |
Tied to clock rate. |
|
|
|
|
|
| SSD Rate (GB/sec) |
5.5 |
2.4 |
229% |
|
Supposedly PS5 Die is around ~300mm^2, while the XSX one is 360mm^2.
So why did the PS5 almost Match XSX in DMC? and come out ahead in Assassin Creed Valhalla?
Because theres more to it than just 12 > 10,3.
The 2 chips have differnt customisations, and thus slightly differnt architectures.
Theoretical peak performance, doesnt matter that much if you cant stay anywhere close to it, for gameing.
Stuff like those GPU Scrubbers (so gpu knows cache adr and doesnt need to do full flush for incomeing batches of data), or the "intersection engine" ability to do other work loads (when not fully utilised for ray traceing) is helping the PS5 punch above its weight (imo). Things like ease of developement, through tools (and familiarity to them) and a unified memory pool (at same speed) can make a differnce too.
Now its just 2 games, and a small sample size.
However I wouldnt be surprised if this turns out true.
Maybe a year or two down the road, we come to realise that the actual performance differnce between these two consoles is tiny.
And most games run about the same on either one.
|
There are architectural differences in play that actually makes all those statistical differences in functional units entirely redundant... Of course people will use them to try and "one up" each other in debates, but really... It's not going to get anyone anywhere.
Assassin Creed Valhalla is a ubisoft game, Ubisoft tends to prioritize a game specifically for a single platform and thus treats all other platforms as second-class citizens, just ask us PC gamers... It's Ubisofts M.O. since forever. And it sucks.
The Playstation 5 is *not* punching above it's weight, it's well within it's intended expected capabilities when compared to PC GPU's... No point counting your eggs when you still have 7+ years of this console hardware to play with, including that tiny 16GB of Ram.
Essay Pro