Forums - Gaming Discussion - PS5 vs XSeX: Understanding the Gap

Intrinsic said:

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.

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.



Around the Network
Evilms said:

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. 



 

 

CrazyGPU said:

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.

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.



Intrinsic said:

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...

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.

Please do explain how you figure XSX will have a harder time hitting their clocks and how more CU's and shaders = worse performance id love to hear it...



.....or not



Around the Network

All these threads are just brining more attention to it. I can't recall one Xbox fan made thread really talking up the power discrepancy. We talk about it in the empire thread and what have you though.

I mean it's nice to have the more powerful console but guys... We don't really care that much. Just wait for the games, for the love of god.



Evilms said:

As far as I know Bolo Yeung was champion in South Korea as body builder. So masters of different fields =p



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

Intrinsic said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

The SSD is so fast that I don't think there would be major issues having OS or browser or any other aplication using majority of the RAM while in screen and then SSD fastly feeding RAM when you change to another app or back to game.

And 790Gb of usable space on the SSD is almost as much as a 1Tb drive would neet you on PS4.

Also important to notice that several games you would need as much free space as the game uses full just for update since it had to duplicate what is installed to apply the patch.



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

ironmanDX said:
All these threads are just brining more attention to it. I can't recall one Xbox fan made thread really talking up the power discrepancy. We talk about it in the empire thread and what have you though.

I mean it's nice to have the more powerful console but guys... We don't really care that much. Just wait for the games, for the love of god.

The you have a bad memory, because between reveal and release of X1 there were plenty of threads about secret sauce, directX, Cloud, eDram, and people reposting some shody websites as evidence.

We also had Major Nelson or Don Mattrick saying on official page of MS that there was no way they would allow their console to be 30% weaker than Playstation and people used that as evidence for secret sauce.



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

DonFerrari said:
ironmanDX said:
All these threads are just brining more attention to it. I can't recall one Xbox fan made thread really talking up the power discrepancy. We talk about it in the empire thread and what have you though.

I mean it's nice to have the more powerful console but guys... We don't really care that much. Just wait for the games, for the love of god.

The you have a bad memory, because between reveal and release of X1 there were plenty of threads about secret sauce, directX, Cloud, eDram, and people reposting some shody websites as evidence.

We also had Major Nelson or Don Mattrick saying on official page of MS that there was no way they would allow their console to be 30% weaker than Playstation and people used that as evidence for secret sauce.

I'm talking about the XSX and PS5.

Not really looking for... "But you guys did it first" type of responses.

I could also retort with talk about The cell but that was so many years ago are most of the users even likely to be the same? Probably not.