Trumpstyle said:
I read the article "but through a process of careful testing, it was possible to provide a very close match, up to and including ray tracing features, so let's get straight into the nitty-gritty." https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2021-call-of-duty-black-ops-cold-war-pc-vs-ps5 From what I seen you can turn off those RTX effects on PC and the rtx effects works different per map. But I will check the video. I just skipped to fps meter to get a screenshot. From the article the only thing that runs lower than PC is alpha effects, nothing else. |
Alpha Effects tends to be stupidly demanding on memory bandwidth which then impacts real-world pixel, texel and texture fillrate throughput.
So whilst you might not think it's "nothing else" one workload can impact multiple parts of a GPU and hold back the entire machine.
Captain_Yuri said:
Maybe you should read the article again: "This is our best shot at directly stacking up console vs PC, but there's a very important caveat to factor in - the lower precision effects buffer on PS5, which we can't replicate on PC, and where we can't even begin to measure the possible performance penalty on our GPUs. Put simply, ballpark is the best we're going to get." "On the AMD side of things, I found the RX 6800 XT's result to be off-pace - it has 72 compute units vs the 36 inside PlayStation 5, it's based on the same architecture, and clock speeds are broadly equivalent, yet it delivered just 29.4 per cent of extra performance. Whether it's an optimisation issue, or a driver issue, I expected more. " |
AMD and nVidia "build" GPU's with forward workload projections, so a game that is shader heavy today may not utilize all of the raster capabilities in the latest GPU's, that might not occur until years later once game development catches up.
It's like when AMD built VLIW5... They started that GPU design architecture concept likely around 2003... Based on forward workload projections.
Eventually some of those design ideas ended up in the Xbox 360 in 2005... And later became a PC product in 2007.
But before Graphics Core Next compute-focused architecture came around, AMD noticed that trend towards higher levels of compute and how some parts of VLIW5 were being under-utilized... So they worked on VLIW4 as a mid-way gap.
Same thing happened with GCN-to-RDNA2. - AMD saw that there was a trend to more texturing and geometry throughput rather than compute so started making moves towards that. - Obviously we got RDNA as a "stop gap" GPU like with VLIW4 which was a total rebalancing of GCN+RDNA to be more raster performant rather than compute.
Drivers are also still immature for RDNA2 right now, that will change... Graphics Drivers are the size and complexity of entire operating systems these days... Often 500MB worth of binary code is just to get chips to work...
The 6800XT will certainly be a step above whatever the Playstation 5 will ever offer.
Chazore said:
You know, the characteristics are almost like a certain green frog that was "removed" from this site some time ago. Constant downplay of PC side tech, boast of console side tech overlapping/surpassing whatever PC tech can dish out, an yet history ends up proving different in the long-run. I don't think he's actually here in this main PC thread to actually discuss PC gaming, but more of a means to downplay it. That's the message I've been getting anyway, because he's hardly been posting much to do with PC games/PC tech, that doesn't have to do with a console comparison tech talk. |
Without the PC hardware development and generational improvements every 5 or so years, the consoles wouldn't be where they are today.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
