Forums - Sony Discussion - Why we cannot compare PS5 and Xbox series X directly, EDIT : add Resident Evil 3 remake and DOOM Eternal that run better on PS4 Pro as an example, also add EX- Crytek Developer and programer testimon

drkohler said:
HollyGamer said:

PS5 will not have the same problem because even if Series X is  560 GB/Second ,  some RAM  modul run slower at 330 GB/S.  while PS5 has unified number speed with 448 GB/S across the memory setup and has the same 16GB amount of RAM the same with Series X. 

Not true. That's one of the points Cerny missed to address. The XSX can use 10Gbytes of ram at 560 GB/s. That is the obvious place where textures, frame buffers and all the key stuff is allocated. The compiler/linker will make sure of that, all games, all the time. The PS4 only has 448GB/s. If 448 GB/s is enough for safe 4k/60Hz I'm really not sure. The games wil tell, but I think this is a gamble (simply for using lower priced ram chips) that might not pay off in the end. On the same games, the XSX will have more (native) pixels on screen. On the other hand, the PS5 will have the "better" pixels if all the ssd-tricks are used.

But 10 GB of texture frame buffers and all the key stuff will not suffice , if PS5 run the same number,  they can allocate more ram for those effect because the memory module setup are unified and running the same speed.  



Around the Network

RE3 was possibly designed around the PS4 first than ported to the X1 with little optimization.
Also a game running more frames is easier to hit than a game hitting max resolution. It takes more power to hit native 4k from 1080p than to go from 30 to 60 frames.
If Capcom wanted, they could have easily reduced the resolution for a better framerate if they wanted a quick fix.

Games like these are lookers, so they opted for 4k because it doesn't really need 60 frames.



Not sure what you're trying to convey with this update, and how it relates to the tech comparison between PS5 and XSX.

A superior system running a multiplatform game at lower fps can occur if its version has the higher resolution or fidelity. At some resolution, PS5 would struggle to run a PS2 level game at 10 fps.

This isn't the real technical tradeoff we're hoping PS5 has lol.



HollyGamer said:

OK guys another example is Resident Evil 3 Remake this games run slightly better resolution but worse frame rates on One X but run almost 60 fps on PS4 Pro with lower resolution the One X. Remember on paper both One X has 45 % advantage in terms FLOP ( plus One X has better memory setupand with UHD 4k). This is just shows in reality both machine has some thread off , some aspect can be run better some aspect can be run bad, they have plus and minus. Comparing PS5 and Series X will be even harder and imposible both even far closer than PS4 and Xbox One (41 %), and with both can produce native 4k and run VRS i believe both will run the same .

X1X runs at a higher resolution, which probably explains the lower framerate.



I came because of the RE3 title update. PS4 Pro and Xbox X are not the same as PS5 and Series x...Xbox One X is objectively a better machine. Any discrepancy with the Xbox X is the result of poor developer optimization, nothing more.

My guess is among the total sales of the game, Xbox One X buyers are a low percentage. Hence the results.



___________

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Mark Cerny and Digital Foundry explained it, it isn`t a temporary boost. It is the regular use of the GPU and CPU, either of them can be kept to the maximum frequency all the time, sure he don`t say both would be at the same time, and that is where the change in frequency comes for one going down (few %) for the other to go the maximum.

Not only both of you are satisfied but also expect shift on how games are made when leveraging the SSD advantages.

Sony specifically mentioned AMD's Smart Shift technology.
I have a notebook that leverages similar technology.

Basically if the demand for the CPU or GPU is lesser... Then the other can clock up to it's maximum as it has the TDP available.

It cannot maintain both the CPU and GPU at maximum clocks indefinitely, otherwise it's not a "boost mode" at all and Sony shouldn't have even bothered to mention it.

The Smarshift in PS5 is specifically to give unused power from CPU to GPU, doesn't seem like it will be the same you have on notebook.



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

drkohler said:
Pemalite said:


Basically if the demand for the CPU or GPU is lesser... Then the other can clock up to it's maximum as it has the TDP available.

It cannot maintain both the CPU and GPU at maximum clocks indefinitely, otherwise it's not a "boost mode" at all and Sony shouldn't have even bothered to mention it.

Complete nonsense. Again you didn't listen to what Cerny said. Try again, starting around the 35 minute mark.

The PS5's maximum cpu and gpu clocks are UNKNOWN. The cpu is CAPPED at 3.5GHz. The gpu is CAPPED at 2.23GHz. These are the maximum frequencies allowed that guarantee correct operations inside the cpu and gpu, under all conditions. We have no idea how the cooling system (and power supply) was designed for what power dissipation limit. At worst, it was designed to just hold the 3.5/2.23GHz clocks (with rocket noise or not), at best it was designed to hold 4/2.5GHz clock levels (probably with rocket noise, those are some high frequencies). The proof is in the pudding, and we don't have any yet to eat.

When you place your PS5 into the fridge, it WILL indefinitely run games at the maximum allowed two frequencies as the cooling can handle max power without problems. The ability to shift power from the cpu to the gpu is always there, of course, but it will simply not take place due to the caps.

Now if you are the ranger in the Death Valley ranger station and decide to play a game around noon in the front yard, thing are different, there is a thermometer element hidden somewhere. Then all the frequency shifting takes place (incidentally, Cerny didn't say what happens when you really ARE in Death Valley locations. But so did he "miss to mention" critical stuff in other places). Who wins and who loses depends on what the game is doing at any moment in time, obviously. Don't expect to see significant drops, though. Cerny mentions a 10% in power drop only costs a few % in clock rates, so I'm guessing we won't likely see "bad" clock rates below the 2.1Ghz point on the gpu.

From Mark Cerny PS5 shall operate exactly the same in cold or hot environment.



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

I do think it's hard to compare the two consoles as they obviously have totally different strategies behind them. Series X has a very straightforward design with a bit more raw power that is build to scale well with pc's and Xcloud. Sony on the other hand put a lot more focus on their SSD tech, which they believe will revolutionize level design and isn't even available on pc at this time.

In the end it's up to developers to use both consoles to its fullest potential. However, the key difference is that the design philosophy behind Series X is that their exclusives also have to run on low-end pc's. Meaning the games will be less ambitious but probably all run at native 4k/ 60fps (or even 120fps). Sony's exclusives on the other hand will likely focus more on their SSD tech and will try to deliver completely new game experiences that wouldn't be possible on a low end pc, and with much less of a focus on native 4k. We will see how that will compare but imo Sony's approach sounds a lot more exciting than just native 4k and a high fps.

Check out MS's GDC stream and their vision for Series X and xcloud (skip to 2:12) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BArgzbJs2xQ

Last edited by goopy20 - on 20 March 2020

Hiku said:

Which brings up the interesting question. What happens if they push fidelity to the point where they re-introduce those limitations again?
It would again stifle game design, but I'd be curious to see what a game like that would look like.

Lol... With a pool of around 14GB of usable RAM, and SSDs that can move data in at around 5GB/s, if devs were to reintroduce said limitations then the games being made would probably be like 500GB big. At least.



Intrinsic said:
Hiku said:

Which brings up the interesting question. What happens if they push fidelity to the point where they re-introduce those limitations again?
It would again stifle game design, but I'd be curious to see what a game like that would look like.

Lol... With a pool of around 14GB of usable RAM, and SSDs that can move data in at around 5GB/s, if devs were to reintroduce said limitations then the games being made would probably be like 500GB big. At least.

5.5GB/s or raw data. But 8-9GB/s of compressed data.



  • PSN: Hynad
  • NN: 3519-6016-4122
  • XBL: Hynad
  • Steam: Hynad81