Yes, I had a similar problem with that graph, some things there are more important than others and the graph doesn't weigh the importance of the different things it's touching on.

With the blurry image thing... yes, that goes without saying. The PS5 will on average run at lower rez than the XSX with all else being equal, or more specifically if both consoles are locking framerates. But why this is not important is because of what resolutions we are talking about to begin with. While 2052p is a 16% lower resolution than 2160p, that's not the kinda difference that's perceptible unless you pause the image and zoom in by like 300% or something and even then it may be still hard to see. But yes, its a difference.

Oh.. and with regards to their rated clocks? They will hit those clocks whenever they are needed to hit them. Especially the PS5. It may seem hard to believe, but its actually easier for thePS5 to hit its 2.2Ghz clock than it would be for the XSX to ht its 1.8Ghz clock. Long story...

Technically... nothing is ever maxing out their CPU/GPU "at all times". They just don't need to cause games aren't designed that way. To be clear, I am talking about these things ever hitting their max clocks. Whenever the software calls for it either the PS5/XSX would be able to hit those max clocks.

Now hitting max load is a completely different mater. Which is what I believe you ar talking about. Yes, its harder keeping more CUs busy and running efficiently and that is a benefit of the choice sony made with their CU count.

Current gen, suspend and resume dies when you kill the console. Next-gen that shouldn't be a problem cause that suspended states just copying the active heap of the game code from RAM to the SSD. Its probably even going to be less than 6GB of data. So as long as that data is on the SSD, then suspend and resume would be persistent through total system shut downs.

I know people are all excited about this thing, ut in truth this is just the natural by-product of having an SSD as fast as these SSDs are. Its not some next-level software wizardry or anything and the PS5 wouldn't just be able to do it but b able to do it faster. Just by having a faster SSD in there.

You know the real kicker? ven if these consoles were 20TF machines... devs would still make games that would have hem have to scale rez.

But don't get me started though... less I start talking about PC hardware that you can build in 2020 for $500 that would be able to perform as well as these consoles But please, lets not go there. 

Where are they getting the PS5 TDP from?

Yep, I'm confident MS will do a lot better next gen, and this is very good as more competition is a great incentive for the other companies to do better.

 Now I'm just wondering which will be the price for XSX and PS5. MS put more money in the brutal power and their optimizations and velocity architecture, Sony in the very custom SSD and all the system customization and architecture and cooling system. Which Console cost more to produce ? At this point I have no idea, maybe the ones here with better hardware understanding could do a better guess.

  As you said, the biggest selling numbers are made by the best and most popular 3rd party games, which will most probably look and/or perform better on XSX, and this is already a very good point for MS.  Next Gen will be more interesting I believe :)

Sony needs to do something about their memory bandwidth though. Thats the one area I see there being an issue for them down the road.

The PS5 has only 448GB/s of bandwidth shared between the CPU and GPU. 2ch DDR4 in PCs peak at around 50GB/s and 4ch peaks at around 60GB/s. So even if we say the PS5 is using 48GB/s exclusively for CPU related bandwidth and running the OS in the background, that's leaving only 400GB/s of bandwidth for the GPU. I just don't think that's enough.Especially considering that the XSX has 560GB/s of bandwidth exclusively for its GPU.

I believe its a money thing, cause from previous leaks its clear sony had tested their chip using faster RAM. So t just have been that the gains they would have got for their system going from14gbs chips to 16Gbs chips which would've landed them at 512GB/s of bandwidth probably wasn't worth the cost and going with 18Gbs chips which would have landed them at around 576Gb/s would have just been too costly.

I'm just here because of Xbox Sex.

Makes sense, and makes me less excited for the 'feature' as the OS will likely reserve space on the SSD for suspend/resume for multiple games. I guess it will be configurable and booting up a game and pressing continue won't last much longer anyway from SSD.

I do wonder if we can have a browser on PS5 that doesn't run out of memory all the time :)

Yup... but the good news is that the OS would be serving far less space in the SSD than they currently do in current-gen consoles. The reason being that current-gen consoles have to have a certain amount of space to "copy" a game to during an install. Next gen console wouldn't need to do that anymore. So of say te 825GBn the PS5, 6-8GB would be reserved per game for instant resume, lets just call it 8GB and let's say sony supports the feature or 3 games. That's 24GB gone. Then OS catch would probably take up another 10GB depending on how snappy they want things to be.

So what would be left for us is around 780-790GB of usable space.

As for the browser...what sony's approach tells me is that they probably have a hard limit of less than 500MB for apps,that's the only reason I can see as to why even the PS4 runs into RAM issues when using the browser. Hopefully, that number goes up this time around cause now they could technically have an OS that is 1GB when in the background and is 8GB when upfront.

Also, let suppose PS5 averages 9.7 Teraflops because of variable frecuency , the XBOX has 25% more compute power. Then you would need 25% more bandwith to take data to the cores. And 560 is 25% more than 448. So maybe there is the balance and getting the expensive 18 Gbs chips to get PS5 to 576 GB/s doesn´t make much sense since 448 is balanced with those 36 shader cores and more bandwith would not translate in that much performance.  Just guessing here.

Except the contest is who can bench press the heaviest weights. Sorry I don’t make the rules :) Console gens have always been about this. 

Lol.. that's cheating :)

First we can't downclock the PS5 GPU and leave the XSX GPU as is. Further more the whole variable frequency doesn't even work that way being that the CPU would ever need to be tasked enough for it to be running at its max clock. I actually expect devs to pretty much lock the CPU to like a 3.2Ghz clock to be able to run the GPU at its max clock under max load whenever they need it to.

But let's get to the numbers, and fairly this time.

PS5: 448GB/s
CPU+ Background OS state = ~ 48GB/s (that's more than what you would get from a PC with dual-channel 2666Mhz DDR4)
GPU = 400GB/s /10.3TF = 38.8GB/TF

XSX: 336GB/s + 560GB/s  
CPU + OS = 336GB/s ( this is even waaaay more than the CPU would ever need but nothing can be done here cause the 3.5GB of RAM left over here after the OS has reserved its share would probably get saturated by the CPU bound tasks anyways)
GPU = 560GB/s  / 12.1TF = 46.3GB/TF

The PS5s GPU just looks like something that would become bandwidth starved to me. Yes, the bandwidth difference is about the same as the total TF difference (~17%) but this is one area where you want to have as much bandwidth as possible. If they had gone with 16Gbs chips they would have at least had 512GB/s total and if we take the same 48GB/s out for the CPU/OS, they would have ended p with 45GB/TF.

Strange choice if you ask me unless of course, they know something that we don't or the CPU tasks use far less bandwidth than I have listed here.