Forums - Gaming Discussion - Let's talk about Specs

You like Specs?

I love Specs! 16 40.00%
 
I kinda like Specs. 13 32.50%
 
Specs are for nerds! 2 5.00%
 
I don't care either way, ... 9 22.50%
 
Total:40
alexxonne said:
Pemalite said:

You actually know nothing.

You say you are a pc gamer, yet still don't understand lots of things.

If you are going to quote me, you need to actually quote my statements rather than drive your own false narrative with fake quotations.

I never said "You actually know nothing.".

alexxonne said:

Legacy software is run by using the new routines based on cycles(mhz) to match the older hardware. When the legacy software is incompatible or unstable it just doesn't work. It is the sole reason modern CPUs can be 10 times more powerful yet they run old software like crap. You need to equalize processing cycles to achieve true legacy interpretation. And not just the cycles, the instructions sets and features, all of them interpreted for a true legacy solution. Having multi-core and multi-threads processing helps, but is has been the sole reason for the difficulties in building an emulation profiles to run 360 games in xbox one. They needed to alter game routines in order to run them on a lesser cycle based processor, and test them on a one by one basis, it is a very time consuming, effort. As a PC gamer you should know that, VERY WELL.

Apparently you don't have an understanding of how backwards compatibility is achieved on the Xbox One.
If you think Microsoft is doing pure emulation... You are highly mistaken.

The rest of your ramble needs some citations, otherwise I am discarding the lot.

But hey, if you believe that Mhz is the sole driver for performance... I am about to school you rather excessively on why the Pentium 4 and AMD bulldozer flopped so hard despite having more Mhz.

alexxonne said:

Gpu architecture design is dependent on patents, rights and other things. Microsoft needed a solution to survive their 2nd generation hardware because they failed with the OG xbox, and then designed the 360 to emulate Xbox games by brute force performance and commands interpretations, not legacy. In ATI's favor (now AMD if you didn't know) xbox og gpu was a just a modified geforce 3 card. Microsoft NT based OS for the OG xbox essentially converted all of the games for it into simple directX based routines (hence the X-box dumbass). ATI managed to assimilate lots of the routines, but not all of them. It is the same problems and issues when using and building emulators. You use a different and superior CPU to emulate a lesser CPU, but since processing cycles dominate half of the performance issues you need a faster (in cycles) processor and a better one (in architecture).  Just try comparing and airplane vs cargo ship.  A cargo ship has more capacity while the airplane has less, but one carries it's cargo faster. Old games were built with those differences in mind. Another issue is excessive performance , just take the ps2 for example. It doesn't like to read games from a hard drive, because it is just too fast compared to the optical drive. Lots of PS2 games were built using the native ps2 cd drive reading speed, so when you load games using a hard drive, most of them crash if you don't toggle the options to cap the transfer rate. Try reading about emulation, and backwards compatibility. Is just common sense.

Jesus Christ.
Yes you are right, GPU architectures are laden with patents, rights and other things, but so what? Nothing here actually contradicts my statements.

alexxonne said:

Publisher rights for backwards compatibility is an issue from this generation, not older ones. This makes you a kid, by not knowing that. Not having your game running on the newer console back then (~2000-2008) was seen a failure for not reaching the entire gaming market, so most publishers were very supportive and some were forced (business wise) to help Sony and Microsoft, by having their games running in BC mode. PS3 sales failure at the beginning of the last generation (2006-2008) forced them to abandon BC and old game sales collapsed somehow, and the monetization scheme for BC changed into the "buy again" model this generation, mostly in Sony's side, while Microsoft absorbed their implementation. Essentially you buy the same game you have, but with a custom made profile to run in the newer console. Other options as porting and remastering were used. Being the latter the better approach for that kind compatibility.

Do not call me a kid. Consider this a warning.

Publisher rights for backwards compatibility was an issue for the older generations as well. It's an issue whenever it is a software approach to backwards compatibility... Which is why the entire Original Xbox library wasn't backwards compatible on the XBox 360 or Xbox One, because Microsoft needs permission for both platforms.

Sony's false start with the Playstation 3 has nothing to do with any of that.

alexxonne said:

For true backwards compatibility you need either a previous generation console CPU/GPU chip embedded along side the new console architecture or a legacy approach using a software interpreter, that can translate command by command. An interpreters is what was used for ps1 BC in the PS2 and PS3. The code is already built no need to re-invent the wheel. The same is for the PS2 up to an extent. But PS3 is massive and complicated system that needs lots of brute force processing. BC compatibility could have been announced for ps1/ps2 games without any issues, even the ps4 have a built in ps2 emulator that they use for the ps2 classics, and a game by game basis.

False.

Ironically... People like to assert that the Playstation 3 is this "massively complex machine" that requires "brute force processing" in order to emulate... Yet the Playstation 3 Emulator RSPC3 is better than the Xbox 360 emulator not just in terms of compatibility... But performance as well!

Kinda' contradicts your entire position and all.

True backrwards compatibility you do not need the previous generation CPU/GPU chip, it helps, but it's not a requirement.
A successive chip which retains the same instruction set is sufficient.

alexxonne said:

For a 4K gaming machine it will work great, but not for what we hoped for. This is almost a Slim ps5 solution not a robust one console. And until they finally launch the console, i will be hesitant about it because it simply doesn't make any sense. Sony built the PS5 for a 399 price point. Whether they lose some money or not by launch is another thing. But that is the reality of it. For a true PS4 successor Sony needed a machine in the same range or over Xbox SX.  I hate to see resources and money spent over an audio chip that no matter how great can be, it wil not change a bit how games are played. Audio immersion is so much diluted in gaming and diversified, that by the time PS5 arrives a gunshot, a punch, a crash, a scream will sound the same as in the xbox Sx, due to the use of the same crappy TV speakers everyone uses. 4K Gaming is about 4K not audio. That was a misfire from Cerny and Love the man but, hes out of his zone already.

Citations needed.

Don't take audio lightly, lots of people have decent audio setups and don't use crappy TV speakers.

Positional 3D audio can also assist those who are just using something as basic as headphones anyway.


Microsoft is taking 3D positional audio seriously as well... In-fact 3D positional Audio took a backseat with the 7th and 8th gen consoles... The Original Xbox with it's Soundstorm chip had impressive capabilities for the era.

alexxonne said:

Cerny was the underdog and lost, that was my point. He needed to counter act Microsoft approach and recent news of the new generation console but by simply stating teraflops aren't equal and not being relevant just undermined his own credibility. Is the same failed PS4 pro tactic as when he tried to prove that checkerboard rendering was in equal quality as native 4k rendering.

I don't give two shits about Phil, Cerny or whoever else does the PR for these companies.

Teraflops aren't equal or relevant, I have been saying that for years on these forums.

alexxonne said:

And as a PC gamer you should know very well that a teraflops is a theoretical performance measurement of Fp16/32 integers based on an specific hardware architecture, and will never be the same is given architecture changes. How THE HELL YOU DON'T KNOW THIS.? You need to study and fast.

Teraflops that are propagated by various individuals are a theoretical denominator.

Teraflops that are actually measured in real-world scenarios have a degree of legitimacy depending on task.

Teraflops isn't FP16/32 Integers. It's floating point, not integers. Wow.

Teraflops being floating point numbers is the same regardless of architecture, regardless if it's AMD, nVidia, IBM or Intel.

alexxonne said:

True teraflops don't mean a bit if hardware architecture is different, but both console already announced they will use the same RDNA 2 architecture, just different configurations (CU's and clock). Any other difference would be less tangible.

Just because they are RDNA2, doesn't mean their real-world teraflops are equivalent, there may be other bottlenecks in the design due to different clockrates/functional units/external factors coming into play. (I.E. Bandwidth.)

alexxonne said:

Don' t get me wrong I LOVE Sony, but since the PS4 Pro, I'm hesitant to buy anything because of the approach Sony is using since then. But loving a brand involves criticism and not blindness.

Your love for any company is irrelevant... And with all due respect... I honestly don't care.

alexxonne said:

I recommend you to read/watch about what is

- Legacy software

- Emulation / Interpreters

- Fp16/32 integers calculation and benchmarking

- Backwards compatibility PS1/PS2/OG XBOX

- History of Game Consoles

- PC hardware (CPU, GPU, Memory)

you get it.

I think you may need to do some research if you think FP16/32 is integer.

And on the front of Emulation... You should probably look up Binary Translation, Abstraction, Virtualization, Code Morphing and so forth.

alexxonne said:

**As a side note...I don't know why Sony (Microsoft too) doesn't just let people decide what content they want. They can use their generic emulators(ps2/ps1) with the respective compatibles games. An option for developers is to charge a premium for advanced solutions like internal resolution scaling or a higher resolution texture packs. There are options. Crowdfunding a title so it can be compatible or establishing funding goals to achieve compatibility options. There are lots of ideas and ways that can benefit users and developers alike. Imagine if you had the first Gran Turismo for PSX, with the options to be internally rendered at 4k with 4k textures, texture filters and AA options, all of it for just $1.99/2.99. If you don't pay then you run the game exactly as the ps1 the vanilla version. These features normally are just options in the emulation profile and it doesn't involve lots of money or time. Lets say 100,000 people buy the upgraded option, surely it will pay for the efforts and revitalizes monetization of old games versus full remasters. Leaving the user that bough the upgrade to tun off/on the individual features at will and decide what kind of experience they want. Maybe they can offer a backward compatibility option at a price, if you own the game pay 3.99, full game 9.99. Take for example Code Veronica for PS4, is just an emulated ps2 game, with some advanced options turned on. I own the game for ps2, still i had to buy it (2.99 if i remember well). OK. Why not offer me for free or at a very low price the vanilla version with the low resolution and assets as the original, and/or offer me as a side offer the advanced options for an additional price. That is pro consumer, you give power and options to the user, and with it additional income to the developers for those games not currently available.**

Because licenses.

All of what you propose (upscaling) is generally free on other platforms. (PC.)

DonFerrari said:

Small correction, Cerny confirmed some data on the Spider-Man was duplicated over 100 times on the HDD. They were very splicit that game size would be reduced with the SDD solution.

Got a source?

EricHiggin said:
Pemalite said:

Citation needed.

Nope. AMD invented it for it's notebook APU's. It's just better sharing of TDP between the CPU and GPU to drive up clocks... It's just a more refined technology to what was in Raven Ridge in 2018.

25:00 - 26:26

Cerny does say 'discreet GPU products around the time PS hardware comes out'. That would likely mean SmartShift isn't one of them as it's already out.

Seems Cerny is stating that they bring forth "concepts". - AMD actually builds and invents the tech.
We actually saw that with Graphics Core Next when Sony pushed harder for higher ACE unit counts... Which assisted heavily with asynchronous compute.

DonFerrari said:

The only question on the sprint all day is how thrustworthy Cerny saying the system was designed to be always in boost mode and that it won't overheat, power consumption is always the same and the heat is already covered. Just that it will have some small percentage trade-off between the load on CPU to GPU (to save like 10% power on small decrease of frequency).

Also the other aspect that needs more detail on the architeture is how much the extra frequency will help PS5 against the choice for less CUs.

We simply don't know yet.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 20 March 2020

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:

DonFerrari said:

Small correction, Cerny confirmed some data on the Spider-Man was duplicated over 100 times on the HDD. They were very splicit that game size would be reduced with the SDD solution.

Got a source?

EricHiggin said:

25:00 - 26:26

Cerny does say 'discreet GPU products around the time PS hardware comes out'. That would likely mean SmartShift isn't one of them as it's already out.

Seems Cerny is stating that they bring forth "concepts". - AMD actually builds and invents the tech.
We actually saw that with Graphics Core Next when Sony pushed harder for higher ACE unit counts... Which assisted heavily with asynchronous compute.

DonFerrari said:

The only question on the sprint all day is how thrustworthy Cerny saying the system was designed to be always in boost mode and that it won't overheat, power consumption is always the same and the heat is already covered. Just that it will have some small percentage trade-off between the load on CPU to GPU (to save like 10% power on small decrease of frequency).

Also the other aspect that needs more detail on the architeture is how much the extra frequency will help PS5 against the choice for less CUs.

We simply don't know yet.

I don't know if I would say he was super clear, but he definitely implied games would be smaller due to not having to duplicate data in the presentation. This might be a bigger deal than it seems with only an 825GB raw storage space.

---

Yes, I would assume AMD does the overwhelming majority of the engineering and design. We'll have to see if SmartShift is a feature in big Navi cards that are supposed to be coming later this year. Cerny seemed to be hinting there's something worthy in RDNA 2 thanks to SNY.

---

The leaks have existed for some time that 2.0GHz was supposed to be the peak. There was a rumor/leak not all that long ago that SNY had upgraded to, or decided to go with a pricey high end cooling solution. It's possible they got fairly solid info on XBSX and decided to push PS5 clocks slightly beyond where they were initially planned to be capped. Could also be why the talk was promoted, since they may not have final hardware yet. The shell may need to be slightly redesigned or increased in size. They would want to test plenty with new shells to make sure the heat dissipation and sound levels are acceptable before showing it off. Could also just be marketing tactics, since PS4 wasn't shown early.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 20 March 2020

CGI-Quality said:

The more I really dissect, the more excited I get (and yes, I like that the specs are using very different techniques, makes it feel more like a real battle)...

Here is some important stuff I'm gonna give everyone (for the less savvy)...

  • The Xbox Series X's GPU is more powerful, period — full stop, with 52 compute units compared to Sony’s 36. This suggests the Series X may have 1.5x more graphics power. But even the teraflop counts, the metrics you’re most likely to have seen so far, are not quite so far apart. Microsoft says the Xbox Series X has 12.155 of theoretical power, and the PS5 delivers 10.28TF. The Xbox is around 1.18x as powerful.

  • But nothing is quite as simple as a single figure, as I and Pemalite have stated a time or two. One way Sony manages to narrow the performance gap between the PS5 and the much more powerful “engine” of the Series X is to use a variable GPU clock speed. The Xbox Series X GPU is locked at 1.825Ghz. Sony’s PS5 GPU can reach 2.23GHz, but will not always operate at this frequency. It has a less “beefy” CPU, but can work it harder. And this makes us wonder about its cooling system, which we have not seen yet.

  • The PS5’s drive is far faster, though. It is capable of 5.5GB/s data transfer, which turns into 8-9GB/s when compression is used. This does not slow the console down either, as there is hardware dedicated to decompression of this data. Microsoft’s Xbox Series X SSD is fast, and can use similar hardware-based compression, but its speeds are 2.4GB/s, or 6GB/s with compression.

  • The PS5 can, in a sense, outperform its superior on-paper competitor, but, the Series X should be able to sustain its performance for far longer. The PS5 can sprint, but it can’t sprint all day.

Any questions? Ask away!

The PS5 can sprint all day. It can sustain peak as much as it wants, provided the content it runs is properly optimized.

The boost mention is different from what the term is used for in PCs, laptops, tablet and phones. 




Hynad said:
CGI-Quality said:

Any questions? Ask away!

The PS5 can sprint all day. It can sustain peak as much as it wants, provided the content it runs is properly optimized.

The boost mention is different from what the term is used for in PCs, laptops, tablet and phones. 

Outside of in-house optimization, it cannot sustain itself like the Series X, not at a constant 2.23GHz all the time.



                                                                                                             

CGI-Quality said:
Hynad said:

The PS5 can sprint all day. It can sustain peak as much as it wants, provided the content it runs is properly optimized.

The boost mention is different from what the term is used for in PCs, laptops, tablet and phones. 

Outside of in-house optimization, it cannot sustain itself like the Series X, not at a constant 2.23GHz all the time.

That’s not what Cerny said.




Around the Network
Hynad said:
CGI-Quality said:

Outside of in-house optimization, it cannot sustain itself like the Series X, not at a constant 2.23GHz all the time.

That’s not what Cerny said.

I'm aware, but that still remains to be seen. Execs/Tech Leads have made promises like this before only to fall flat on their faces later on. I believe in Cerny, but the hardware doesn't lie. 

I'm happy to be proven wrong, however, but regardless, the Series X remains ahead in terms of raw power, which was the basis of that post. The PS5 will have some tricks up its sleeve, but it will always be one step behind the X.



                                                                                                             

Pemalite said:

We simply don't know yet.

The source for some assets being hundred time on HDD was given during the GDC talk itself. but i got one for you https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2019/10/19/the-super-fast-ssds-in-the-next-gen-game-consoles-may-turn-out-to-be-a-mixed-blessing/

Not that the exact number is relevant

On the BC logic on chip, theoretically thhat is what PS5 done for PS4.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 20 March 2020

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

Imo Cerny's claims actually make sense when it comes to the way they are doing boost after reading DF's article. Fundamentally, consoles can't be in a situation where they have variable performance in games from console to console due to thermal throttling, power issues and etc. Every console needs to be able to run the game the exact same way as every other console since that is one of the main purposes of a console over PC. Sony mentions this in the DF article:

"According to Sony, all PS5 consoles process the same workloads with the same performance level in any environment, no matter what the ambient temperature may be." - DF

I think the Variable/Boost behaviour comes from the states that ps5 will be running. I am pretty sure Cerny and the rest has done their research and determined that the ps5 will have various states that it can run on that will be repeatable from console to console depending on what the developers want.

As an example. If the CPU is running at 3.5ghz at all 8 cores, the GPU can run at blah clock but below 2.23ghz. If the GPU is running at 2.23ghz then the CPU will run at blah clock but below 3.5ghz at all 8 cores. If both need to run at max performance at the same time, they will run slower than 3.5 and 2.23 but we don't know by how much. Mind you that Cerny says it's not much of a performance dip regardless. So if a game is very GPU bound but not very CPU bound, the ps5's GPU can boost to 2.23ghz all day and vice versa but the ps5 can't have both. The benefit and the main difference of Xbox is because it's not "boosting," it's able to run at it's advertised performance at all times for it's GPU and it's CPU is determined by whether or not the devs want SMT/HyperThreading.

So CPU and GPU load for the XSX doesn't affect each other but it does for the Ps5.

"When that worst case game arrives, it will run at a lower clock speed. But not too much lower, to reduce power by 10 per cent it only takes a couple of percent reduction in frequency, so I'd expect any downclocking to be pretty minor," - Cerny

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-playstation-5-specs-and-tech-that-deliver-sonys-next-gen-vision

Least that's what I got out of it anyway.

Last edited by Captain_Yuri - on 20 March 2020

             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                              Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                             Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

DonFerrari said:

Also the other aspect that needs more detail on the architeture is how much the extra frequency will help PS5 against the choice for less CUs.

First and most important, the 2.23 vs 1.825 GHz difference is valid for everything in the gpu, not just the cus. This includes command processor, raster operations, geometry engines, all the cache and register memory, hardware companders, whatever else is implemented into the gpu (like the Tempest stuff which makes the PS5 the clear winner in the VR department right out of the gate). So if your entire life circled around vector processing, you'd be comfortably ahead with the XSX's cu advantage. That includes Ray tracing, the XSX can roughly calculate 380billion vs PS5's 320billion intersections/s (the PS5 might gain some ground thanks to the faster caches, and boy does rt depend on caches!). This winning scenario assumes that the XSX has the capability to keep all the 52cus busy at all times, whereas the PS5 only has to keep 36cus busy all the time. Now if we look at the history of AMD keeping all its cus busy all the time, that track record is somewhat checkered, to put it mildly. You might remember all the talk about AMD not being able to have more than 64 cus in its cards. Of course there never was a hardware limit (except space constraints, obviously), but the fact that more than 64 cus would simply show such a lousy increase in performance that it basically was money thrown down the gutter. If we assume (big IF) that this has changed with rdna2, then more cus is better, obviously. Keep in mind that keeping more cus busy means more threads which means more command processor activity which means more cache activity (at a lower speed in the XSX compared to PS5). If not, then less cus is better. I hope you are beginning to see that merely shouting "12.1TF vs 10.3TF" sounds very good to the gamerzzz and pr crowd, shouting it to the developers who actually have to use the gpus would make you look a little foolish.

Games will eventually tell who is right. Probably there won't be a right or wrong at all. There's always a solution to hide a 10% deficit in a particular area. One drawback of faster clocks should be mentioned, too. If you have to go to main memory, you lose a little more time on fast clocks than on slower clocks. But if you have to go that road, you've lost anyways. As for the rt advantage, nobody knows yet if simply using a few less rays on the PS5 will nullify the XSX's advantage.

In the end, the games will show who is "right" (and there really isn't a clear right or wrong to start with). Sony with its first party galore still has a clear advantage in the race, if they can show it soon after/with the launch.

Last edited by drkohler - on 21 March 2020

Pemalite said:

I never said "You actually know nothing."

Hey. You are right, t was an error, already fixed that. Was trying to quote some poor arguments from you.

Pemalite said:

Teraflops isn't FP16/32 Integers. It's floating point, not integers. Wow.

You see "FP" stands for Floating Point... 16 is half precision, 32 is full. Integers means whole number of precision and not a fraction of it.  You are trying to debate things out of your understanding. State facts not your rants.

Teraflops are not a standard, not even in the same architecture. It is a measurement that depends on the socket cores and cycle operations a unit has. The more cores or higher clock you have the grater performance you will get. But all will be dependent in how many floating operation per cycle a processing unit can achieve. The only thing true being the same in the calculation is when you have the same architecture; meaning equal floating point operation per cycle operations, so with the given clock and cores, you can easily calculate performance across variants using the same architecture. But once you change the GPU architecture, the brand, or the unit generation; every variable changes the peak theoretical performance. Even if you take a PS5 with 1.8 tflops it will be run games faster than what the PS4 could. This is due to new features being built-in that enhances processing. Another example is by adding a ray tracing buffer to a GPU, this will lead to better FPS performance with touching Tflops calculation. So TFLOPS calculation across Devices ARE NOT THE SAME. ++++For Christ sake READ.++++

And to my understanding kid is not a bad word. Used in the context to denote poor judgement. Not an offense term.

Pemalite said:

Apparently you don't have an understanding of how backwards compatibility is achieved on the Xbox One.
If you think Microsoft is doing pure emulation... You are highly mistaken.

Xbox one GPU was made with a some legacy features, but not all of them. It was the sole reason backwards compatibility wasn't available at launch. It was a half cooked idea. It took years for Microsoft to be able and emulate the other features in software not available in legacy hardware. In fact they had to embed the whole 360 operating system into the xbox one to be able and do it. Where are your facts?

360 emulation in PC is poor because there are no good programmers interested in it, no even for OG xbox. True, some people have been working for years on the libraries and instruction set for those systems, but not much more luck than that. PS3 emulator is great simply because it has a very good programmer devoted to achieve true ps3 emulation in PC, simple as that. PS3 is a very complex system and its CPU is not an ordinary one, technically speaking is still more advanced than ps4 or xbox one cpus; notice i didn't say not faster but advanced. The architecture was so much better that audio processing is way better than what the ps4 is capable of, in addition, even the CPU could be used to assist the GPU for graphics workload. Neither PS4 or Xbox one had these features. Where are your facts?

About the audio, well this is very subjective matter, but i don't want the ps5 system to cost 100 more, just to pay the research of an audio module, that may or may not deliver a better immersive experience. I do enjoy good audio and audiophiles may have something here for them, but I'm not one of them. I have my doubts. And the goal for the ps5 should be achieving a better product(feature and performance wise) while being the cheaper solution. The research putted into this could have been used for BC of PS1/PS2 games and if possible PS3 as well. PS5 specs only brings me PS3 memories.

Truth is PS5 will have 10.28 Tflops in boost mode vs XBOX Sx 12.1 Tflops in fixed mode.  PS5 standard performance (with no boost) should be are around producing 9Tflops according to early leaks. So at the end PS5 will have 18%(best) to 25%(worst) lesser graphics capabilities (vector processing) than XBOX SX. Boost mode may be different than PC but it will affect performance the same. This will translate into fewer graphical intensive features such as ray tracing. I wonder how many ray trays PS5 can support at 4k60 vs XBOX SX, I put all my money that if the current PS5 is the final product Microsoft will end with an advantage. The only thing that benefits Sony is the SSD technology behind the system. True, textures and maps will almost be immediately available to be cached by the GPU, but processing them is an entire different story. How much the GPU will handle before it chokes and underclocks is key to achieve a better experience. Just take a cheap laptop with a SSD drive and try to run an old game vs an old laptop with good specs and a lame hard drive, you will find that no matter how fast textures loads, if the GPU can't handle the workload the performance is gonna stall, being the old laptop better and more stable. At the end, multi-platform games will not differ that much. But exclusive games in Xbox SX will outmatch PS5 exclusives easier due to brute performance and more available resources from CPU/GPU. It will depend in the programing magic and support that Sony can give to its first party studios to be on par or better than XBOX XS. Facts.

Pemalite said:

Your love for any company is irrelevant... And with all due respect... I honestly don't care.

Pemalite, your preferences are respected bot not shared, not with me nor anyone. Preferences are an individual matter. Other people preferences should not be bothering you. So I don't understand you attention to it. So...Whatever.

Last edited by alexxonne - on 21 March 2020