Well, tbh at those prices I wouldn't be interested in any of them but if I have to pick I'll go with PS5.

Probably not. I'd rather just upgrade my PC at that point.

PS5. Why? Because I've already owned the first 4 Playstations, while I've never owned an XBox. There are a lot of reasons for this, but that is just the simple way to say it. Microsoft would have to up their game significantly for me to buy one of their consoles: better games, more reliable hardware, less company sliminess, etc.... On the other hand I didn't really like the PS4, so if the PS5 is similar to that I may not buy one of those either.

Basically I am more likely to buy neither than I am to get an XBox.

Well from what I understood all games would benefit from XSX BC even if the dev doesn't do anything with that method to upscale the game. PS5 is doing something similar with PS4 BC, but sure we need to see the results to evaluate.

PS5, regardless of price and spec. It's all about the games and I know Sony delivers.

If exclusive IPs/Games remain the same - or somewhat similar - to this current gen, then PS5 easily. I couldnt care less about their small differences in specs, I care about the games themselves, and PS4 has had so many great games.

Laptops have this technology too.

Apparently if you lower clock rates ~2-3% you can save upwards of 10% power sometimes.
So if you have a game where the bottleneck is the GPU, you can lower the speed of the CPU, while keeping the GPU running at its highest speed.
And vice versa.

This can be done on the fly, by the hardware itself, it'll intelligently manage the resources (power usage) of both.

So this isnt something they need to code for.

Mark Cerny clarifed that the results where repeatable (ei. always the same).
So they dont need to take any notice of how this technology clocks things up and down, or worry the PS5 will do this differntly from unit to unit.

Its a "cheap" way to maximise the power budget, that the PSU and the Cooler, can handle.


You have 2 options :

a)  you make a power consumption / heat limit, and have your cpu scale up and down, intelligently right up to the "cap". 
This allows you to run right to the limits of what your PSU/cooler can handle.

b) you make your PSU + cooler oversized, and run your CPU+GPU clocks well below the "cap", because depending on usage, their heat/power consumption will jump up and down, and you dont know if it ll go beyound the breaking point.  So your forced to leave yourself a "good margin" of error.


Sony went with option a).

Its a cost effective way to get more performance, out of something, on a limited power / cooling budget.

Microsoft went with option b)

Its safe (the norm in consoles so far), but not as cost effective (you leave performance at the table, leaveing yourself a margin of error).


Basically Sony did everything they could to squeeze extra performance out of a small chip.

This is why I believe there will be a 100$ price differnce between the two.
its a smaller chip, that uses alot of "tricks" to squeeze more performance out of it.



Why does Sony have Variable clocks?
Extra performance, without any added costs to it (why leave performance on the table?)