|Pemalite said: |
Because of the hardware reveals.
And unlike console gamers... I have been playing around with SSD's for over a decade.
I think you meant PS5, not PS4.
Either way, the Xbox Series X having an SSD that is half the speed of the PS5's is by all intents and purposes still stupidly fast.
The PS5's is just twice as fast.
Let's not downplay anything here, let's be realistic of what both consoles offer.
There are some possible edge-case scenarios where the Xbox Series X could potentially close the bandwidth gap due to compression by a few percentage points, but we will need to see the real world implications of that... Because like I have alluded to prior, possibly even in another thread... Many data formats are already compressed and thus don't actually gain many advantages from being compressed again. (Sometimes it can have the opposite effect and increase sizes.)
I am not religious. You seem to be getting upset over the specifications of certain machines? Might be a good idea to take a step back?
Microsoft has similar propriety technology as the Playstation 5 on the compression front and the Xbox Series X also includes a decompression block, that is what we do know, it was what was in the reveal.
Microsoft completely removes the burden from the Zen 2 cores.
No. It is because people are enamored with their particular brand choice and cannot see where they potentially fall short or provide constructive criticism... Or just generally treading on the logical fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact.
The 2.23Ghz -is- a boost clock. Sony/Cerny specifically mentioned Smartshift. - Unless you are calling Cerny a liar?
And I quote Digital Foundry which quoted Cerny:
""Rather than look at the actual temperature of the silicon die, we look at the activities that the GPU and CPU are performing and set the frequencies on that basis - which makes everything deterministic and repeatable," Cerny explains in his presentation. "While we're at it, we also use AMD's SmartShift technology and send any unused power from the CPU to the GPU so it can squeeze out a few more pixels.""
It is shifting TDP from one part of the chip to the other to boost clockrates. It's a boost clock.
If the Playstation 5 cannot maintain a 2.23Ghz GPU clock in conjunction with a 3.5Ghz CPU clock, whilst pegging the I/O, then by extension... That 2.23Ghz GPU clock is not the base clock, it is a boost clock, it is a best-case scenario.
Pretty sure that is not my exact statement and you are taking it right out of context.
The Xbox Series X has the CPU, GPU and Memory bandwidth advantages, it is likely to show an advantage more often than not... Just like the Xbox One X compared to the Playstation 4 Pro.
In simpler titles which won't use 100% of either consoles capabilities... Those games will look identical. - And that happens every console generation, there are base Xbox One and Playstation 4 games with visual parity, right down to resolution and framerates.
Big AAA exclusives are another kettle of fish and could make things interesting... But by and large, if graphics is the most important aspect, the Xbox Series X holds the technical edge due to the sheer number of additional functional units baked into the chip design.
Brute forcing and using design tricks to get around hardware limitations will continue to exist because the SSD is still a limitation until it actually matches the RAM's bandwidth.
Remember... We wen't from optical disks that could be measured in kilobytes per second to mechanical hard drives that could be measured in Megabytes per second... With an accompanying reduction in seek times... Did game design change massively? For the most part, not really... And we are seeing a similar jump in storage capability by jumping from mechanical drives that are measured in Megabytes per second to Gigabytes per second with an equally dramatic decrease in seek times.
People tend to gravitate towards games that they like... Developers then design games around that, hence why something like Battle Royale happened and then every developer and it's pet dog jumped onto the bandwagon to make their own variant.
Everyone copied Gears of Wars "Horde mode" as well at one point.
That's not to say that SSD's won't provide benefits, far from it.
I would not be making such a claim just yet.
The Xbox Series X is a chip with dramatically more functional units... It is only in scenarios where the PS5 has the same number of ROPS, TMU's, Geometry units and so forth that it will be faster than the Xbox Series X due to it's higher clockrates... And usually those units are tied somewhat to the number of Shader groupings.
The Xbox Series X could have the advantage on the GPU side across the board... The point I am making is that until we get the complete specs set, we just don't know yet.
We do know the SSD is twice as fast as the Xbox Series X... Which is what people are clinging to at the moment as it's the only guaranteed superior metric.
Precisely, we do need to account for everything. You can have the same Teraflops, but half the performance if the rest of the system isn't up to snuff.
Only focusing on Teraflops or only focusing on the SSD is extremely 2Dimensional... And doing a disservice to the amount of engineering, research and development that Microsoft, Sony and AMD have put into these consumer electronic devices.
It's more than just initial loading.
Pretty sure the TMU's, ROPS haven't been revealed yet, don't count the chickens before the eggs have hatched.
And rumor has it that the Xbox Series X could have 80 ROPS verses the PS5's 64 ROPS...
In RDNA AMD groups 1x Rasterizer with every 4x Render Back ends, obviously that can change with RDNA 2, but just some food for thought.
Which means that we could be looking at 20 Rasterizers verses 16.
I think you are looking for the shader processors, they have tried to take every aspect of the GPU into account rather than a pure focus on flops.
AMD has "claimed" (Salts, grains, kittens and all that) that RDNA 2.0 is 50% more efficient than RDNA 1... Which was the same jump we saw between Vega and RDNA 1.
Graphics tasks are highly parallel... AMD was struggling with CU scaling because GCN had intrinsic hardware limits, it was an architectural limitation itself, we need to remember when AMD debuted GCN we were working with 32 CU's, AMD then stalled as the company's profits plummeted and AMD had to make cutbacks everywhere in order not to go bankrupt, so they kept milking GCN longer than anticipated in order to keep R&D and engineering costs as low as possible.
Higher frequency isn't always cheaper.
The higher in frequency you go, the more voltage you need to dump into the design... And one aspect of chip yields is that not all chips can hit a certain clock frequency at a certain voltage due to leakage and so forth, which means the number of usable chips decreases and the cost per-chip increases.
It's actually a careful balancing act of chip size vs chip frequency. If you can get all the right cards in a row... You can pull off an nVidia Pascal and drive up clockrates significantly, however nVidia still had to spend a ton of transistors to reduce leakage and remove clockrate limiting bottlenecks from their design, but it paid off.