Despite the fact that I like Playstation, what this graph show is biased in my opinion. Because it looks like every bar has the same importance. For me both of this consoles have the same CPU (3.5 or 3.6 is negligigible). Same amount of RAM, same architecture. So there are two important factors here that differ. One is the SSD. The PS5 SSD is faster. 9 GBps compressed. But that´s nothing compared to the 448 GBps speed of ram. So It will help to load stuff and to save some ram but I don´t think it will be a game changer. On the other side We have 12.15 XBOX teraflops of power vs 10.3 PS5 that in reality would be between 9.2 and 10.3, so let´s take an average of 9.7 like the Radeon 5700 XT. Also we have to feed those engines, XBOXs 560 GB/s of graphic data vs 448 on PS5. harder to code because the slow stuff would have to go on the 336 GB/s XBOX second bus. So we have 12.15 fixed vs let say 9.7. Arround 25% more shader core performance with better feeding 560/448 = also 25%. So I expect 25% more performance on XBOX series X.
There are also the 1st post issue, where Intrinsic say that the difference will be what % of time the game will run at lower than native resolution. We all know that screens are made for a fixed resolution and when you are not using it, yo have a more blurred image. So , That means that if you block your fps to 60, yo will get a blurrier image on PS5 than on XBOX for more time. Off course you can run games at 50 fps instead of 60 and go up in resolution.
So, despite I would like the PS5 to be faster, its not and it won´t be. Maybe as it has a smaller soc, it would be cheaper.
Now, the other thing is that is not about hardware only. Multiplats will take little advantage of SSDs because they have to run on PC. Also they might concentrate on the lowest denominator, that would be the PS5. They might run better (more fps) or with more graphical thingis on XBOX. But really, if what they have to show me is Minecraft ray tracing vs the last of us 2, I go for the later any day.
The last thing I wanna say is that any hard core fan that has an XBOX one X will have a little more than double what he has. from 6 TF to 12 ( and more because of the architecture changes). Meanwhile the PS4 pro guys will go from 4,2 to 10 ( so they will see a bigger jump despite the XBOX will be faster).
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...
What makes you so sure that the XSX is capable of maxing out the gpu all the time? AMD has a somewhat checkered history when it comes to keeping n cus busy all the time as n gets bigger and bigger. Those developers I know don't really have an all-grinning face when they encounter that problem. The more cus you have, the more difficult it gets to max out those cus.
Five to seven years ago, Sony engineers made a bet that the problem will persist within the next few years (so they went low but fast), while MS engineers made a bet that the problem will go away within the next few years (so they went wide and slower). Who is right we'll see or might not even see as there are always "tricks" to hide the problem. At this point in time, there is no way to foretell, despite your unwavering optimism.
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.
Does this suspend/resume also work when always turning the console completely off. I don't like keeping it on since I tend to move it around often and consoles get very angry when you unplug them in standby mode :) I like the fast cold boot from ps4 but if it could be like the Switch, even better.
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.
Imagine being the most powerful console ever and having to scale resolution below 4k.
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.
The numbers don't lie
Where are they getting the PS5 TDP from?