Forums - Sony Discussion - NX Gamer PS5 Full Spec Analysis

DonFerrari said:
Hynad haven't done it as far as I know. But yes there are some people on Sony camp (haven't really see it in this forum) that think the SSD will make PS5 more powerful than XSX thus some are mocking it as secret sauce.

Xbs gpu is 15% faster than ps5. 4k60fps will be a standard for years, because ppl are buying 4k60Hz TVs in masses. Hardly anyone can tell the difference between 4k and 1660p and 60 -120-144fps. There is no such the void to fill it with the extra TF, to really make the difference. The more native/less dynamic res is all what xbs can do better, except RT.

The gap is just not big enough, the diminishing returns are too heavy. PS5 is doing"fine". And SSD is a gamechanger.



Around the Network
Snoopy said:
KratosLives said:
although ps5 has a faster sdd, nearly double the gigs throughput, xbox has faster memory bandwidth and the 100 gb of data immidiately available. Will the faster memory of xboxSx offset the ssd advantage?

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't we be able to upgrade the xbox SSD at any time for a faster one, taking the one small advantage PS5 hardware has over xbox?

Nope. You are wrong. If you are talking about simply plugging in an SSD expansion, however, then you are right. But plugging in a faster SSD isn't going to happen and wouldn't even be allowed. Stuff lie that breaks an ecosystem. Devs would always build their games and engines around what's inside the hardware that everyone buys, and not what is for something that maybe 20% of the platforms user base would buy.

KratosLives said:
It's going to come down to how big of a difference the ssd makes on the ps5, the increase in gpu speed, the io engines and overall architecture. But the thing is both systems use variable shading, and more importantly mesh shaders/primitve shaders, which will allow for huge worlds and detail while limiting costs, power usage. In terms of mesh shading, this is where ps5 might shine in exclusives due to the ssd. Even possibly in multiplats, in games with huge worlds, they can use the advantage of the ssd with mesh shading and free up resources to make up for the xbox advantage, which might go towards ray tracing or resolution.

You take all the things that are similar, cancel them out and then focus on the things that are different. those are the things that would play into what advantages any platform will have. XSX also has mesh shading, which is basically mostly just geometry culling and being that they are programmable now, also geometry prioritization at a very early stage in the pipeline so sources aren't being wasted. This is also an example of "the things that are similar".

Both consoles have native hardware and/or methods thats designed allow them be "more efficient". And since they both have very similar things (albeit called different things) what they have becomes standard across both platforms and results in similar performance gains. Again, its what is different that counts.

Zoombael said:
Hynad said:

You’re showing difficulties to keep up. Read the thread. It also helps to know what goes on in the forums in general.

No difficulty at all. It seems you are not up to it. 

I'll ask you again: What is this secret sauce? Who is biased? You draw paralells where are none. You are saying that one advantage (on paper) is valid, whereas the other advantage (on paper) and Sonys approach is a non existent "secret sauce".

I find anyone at this point saying anything about the secret sauce to be disingenuous or purposefully ignorant. Which to me would mean they have an agenda. So I would advise that you ignore anyone that talks to that effect.

As far as differences go, they are obvious. XSX has a GPU compute advantage and PS5 has an IO speed advantage. No secret sauce there. I don't think anyone is dismissing or ignoring the disadvantage, but rather quantifying it and concluding that it wouldn't matter or make much of a difference. Running at 17% higher rez for 17% of the time in a world with reconstruction, variable resolutions and all other kinds of image gimmickry and with where the floor of these resolutions in question is something as high as 1900p/2052p... is not going to amount to a noticeable perceptible difference. 

I, however, believe most simply do not know/understand just what or he an IO speed advantage is beneficial because its benefits aren't portrayed in a language that is easily quantifiable. Basically, it's easier saying TFs is more than saying SSD can make games look and run better on the PS5.



Intrinsic said:
Snoopy said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't we be able to upgrade the xbox SSD at any time for a faster one, taking the one small advantage PS5 hardware has over xbox?

Nope. You are wrong. If you are talking about simply plugging in an SSD expansion, however, then you are right. But plugging in a faster SSD isn't going to happen and wouldn't even be allowed. Stuff lie that breaks an ecosystem. Devs would always build their games and engines around what's inside the hardware that everyone buys, and not what is for something that maybe 20% of the platforms user base would buy.

KratosLives said:
It's going to come down to how big of a difference the ssd makes on the ps5, the increase in gpu speed, the io engines and overall architecture. But the thing is both systems use variable shading, and more importantly mesh shaders/primitve shaders, which will allow for huge worlds and detail while limiting costs, power usage. In terms of mesh shading, this is where ps5 might shine in exclusives due to the ssd. Even possibly in multiplats, in games with huge worlds, they can use the advantage of the ssd with mesh shading and free up resources to make up for the xbox advantage, which might go towards ray tracing or resolution.

You take all the things that are similar, cancel them out and then focus on the things that are different. those are the things that would play into what advantages any platform will have. XSX also has mesh shading, which is basically mostly just geometry culling and being that they are programmable now, also geometry prioritization at a very early stage in the pipeline so sources aren't being wasted. This is also an example of "the things that are similar".

Both consoles have native hardware and/or methods thats designed allow them be "more efficient". And since they both have very similar things (albeit called different things) what they have becomes standard across both platforms and results in similar performance gains. Again, its what is different that counts.

Zoombael said:

No difficulty at all. It seems you are not up to it. 

I'll ask you again: What is this secret sauce? Who is biased? You draw paralells where are none. You are saying that one advantage (on paper) is valid, whereas the other advantage (on paper) and Sonys approach is a non existent "secret sauce".

I find anyone at this point saying anything about the secret sauce to be disingenuous or purposefully ignorant. Which to me would mean they have an agenda. So I would advise that you ignore anyone that talks to that effect.

As far as differences go, they are obvious. XSX has a GPU compute advantage and PS5 has an IO speed advantage. No secret sauce there. I don't think anyone is dismissing or ignoring the disadvantage, but rather quantifying it and concluding that it wouldn't matter or make much of a difference. Running at 17% higher rez for 17% of the time in a world with reconstruction, variable resolutions and all other kinds of image gimmickry and with where the floor of these resolutions in question is something as high as 1900p/2052p... is not going to amount to a noticeable perceptible difference. 

I, however, believe most simply do not know/understand just what or he an IO speed advantage is beneficial because its benefits aren't portrayed in a language that is easily quantifiable. Basically, it's easier saying TFs is more than saying SSD can make games look and run better on the PS5.

Forget which YouTuber, but one of them explained the PS5 SSD in a TF kinda way that makes it easier to understand, though it's not the perfect example, yet gives a better idea than simply saying it's faster and better just cuz reasons.

The way they put it, was that the PS5 SSD is twice as fast as XBSX, or twice as much performance, on paper.

To apply that to the consoles TF's, that would be like saying PS5 is 10.3 TF, while XBSX would be 20.6 TF, on paper.

Just imagine what would be going on right now if that was the legit TF difference. Well that's basically the difference between the PS5 and XBSX SSD.

What matters now is how that SSD speed get's put to use. Just because you have more powerful hardware components, doesn't mean they automatically make the games as good as the paper specs suggest they should. GPU TF is no different. It depends on how the devs decide to divvy up the time and budget, along with what control each pub has over those devs.

These differences though are something you aren't likely to see for quite a while for either. Even earlier next gen exclusives won't come close to making full use of the extra performance each console has. Though when they do, that is really going to kick things up a notch.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 31 March 2020

EricHiggin said:
Intrinsic said:

Nope. You are wrong. If you are talking about simply plugging in an SSD expansion, however, then you are right. But plugging in a faster SSD isn't going to happen and wouldn't even be allowed. Stuff lie that breaks an ecosystem. Devs would always build their games and engines around what's inside the hardware that everyone buys, and not what is for something that maybe 20% of the platforms user base would buy.

You take all the things that are similar, cancel them out and then focus on the things that are different. those are the things that would play into what advantages any platform will have. XSX also has mesh shading, which is basically mostly just geometry culling and being that they are programmable now, also geometry prioritization at a very early stage in the pipeline so sources aren't being wasted. This is also an example of "the things that are similar".

Both consoles have native hardware and/or methods thats designed allow them be "more efficient". And since they both have very similar things (albeit called different things) what they have becomes standard across both platforms and results in similar performance gains. Again, its what is different that counts.

I find anyone at this point saying anything about the secret sauce to be disingenuous or purposefully ignorant. Which to me would mean they have an agenda. So I would advise that you ignore anyone that talks to that effect.

As far as differences go, they are obvious. XSX has a GPU compute advantage and PS5 has an IO speed advantage. No secret sauce there. I don't think anyone is dismissing or ignoring the disadvantage, but rather quantifying it and concluding that it wouldn't matter or make much of a difference. Running at 17% higher rez for 17% of the time in a world with reconstruction, variable resolutions and all other kinds of image gimmickry and with where the floor of these resolutions in question is something as high as 1900p/2052p... is not going to amount to a noticeable perceptible difference. 

I, however, believe most simply do not know/understand just what or he an IO speed advantage is beneficial because its benefits aren't portrayed in a language that is easily quantifiable. Basically, it's easier saying TFs is more than saying SSD can make games look and run better on the PS5.

Forget which YouTuber, but one of them explained the PS5 SSD in a TF kinda way that makes it easier to understand, though it's not the perfect example, yet gives a better idea than simply saying it's faster and better just cuz reasons.

The way they put it, was that the PS5 SSD is twice as fast as XBSX, or twice as much performance, on paper.

To apply that to the consoles TF's, that would be like saying PS5 is 10.3 TF, while XBSX would be 20.6 TF, on paper.

Just imagine what would be going on right now if that was the legit TF difference. Well that's basically the difference between the PS5 and XBSX SSD.

What matters now is how that SSD speed get's put to use. Just because you have more powerful hardware components, doesn't mean they automatically make the games as good as the paper specs suggest they should. GPU TF is no different. It depends on how the devs decide to divvy up the time and budget, along with what control each pub has over those devs.

These differences though are something you aren't likely to see for quite a while for either. Even earlier next gen exclusives won't come close to making full use of the extra performance each console has. Though when they do, that is really going to kick things up a notch.

Regarding SSD speed, recently info popped up that Microsoft has allegedly the superior compression solution (BCPack) which is better optimized for game data or something and make the gap less relevant. How this all plays into overall performance in the end i don't know. It's definitely keeps things interesting and isn't as plain boring as PS4 vs. X1.



Hunting Season is done...

Zoombael said:
EricHiggin said:

Forget which YouTuber, but one of them explained the PS5 SSD in a TF kinda way that makes it easier to understand, though it's not the perfect example, yet gives a better idea than simply saying it's faster and better just cuz reasons.

The way they put it, was that the PS5 SSD is twice as fast as XBSX, or twice as much performance, on paper.

To apply that to the consoles TF's, that would be like saying PS5 is 10.3 TF, while XBSX would be 20.6 TF, on paper.

Just imagine what would be going on right now if that was the legit TF difference. Well that's basically the difference between the PS5 and XBSX SSD.

What matters now is how that SSD speed get's put to use. Just because you have more powerful hardware components, doesn't mean they automatically make the games as good as the paper specs suggest they should. GPU TF is no different. It depends on how the devs decide to divvy up the time and budget, along with what control each pub has over those devs.

These differences though are something you aren't likely to see for quite a while for either. Even earlier next gen exclusives won't come close to making full use of the extra performance each console has. Though when they do, that is really going to kick things up a notch.

Regarding SSD speed, recently info popped up that Microsoft has allegedly the superior compression solution (BCPack) which is better optimized for game data or something and make the gap less relevant. How this all plays into overall performance in the end i don't know. It's definitely keeps things interesting and isn't as plain boring as PS4 vs. X1.

Some techtubers debunked that almost instanly. Even if it was better they say that it still has 12 memory channels against 8, and over 2x the speed. And the cpu can acces data directly from the ssd unlike the xbox. Add to that not all data can be compresed, means that the gap is actually bigger than the numbers shown, as data is being able to be used in diferent ways just not possible on xbox. Some are saying that background applications like os and such can be accesed directly freeing up ram. Some also say the 3d audio and more stuff that dont require the rams high speed can also be accesed directly. So the ps5 could use in theory the full 16bg of ram for pure graphics and that would explain the 2 diferent  memory pools on xbox, the slower ram would be used for all that and leave just the 10gb of fast ram solely for graphics and then what ever is left over the slower pool added to that. Some of that is said in the digital foundry video, wich the guy talked directly to cerny. 

It still means not much, its up to sony to prove it and until they do, most third partys might just ignore it. But the devs might have the extra ram acces as they want to make it seamless so it might be automatic and devs just have the full 16gb with no restrictions. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network

I don't see why this is still a debate. On paper the X is more powerful while the PS5 is faster. However stuff we are still learning is MS is rumoured to have a better compression solution and might be easier to develop for in comparison to the PS5 etc.
Like most console generations, hardware is only as good as the developers using it. 12 TF or a super fast SSD is useless if devs don't optimise for it.

Also wanted to add, those saying you cannot tell the difference between resolutions is debatable.

As TVs get bigger, so does the differences. 1440p vs 4k on a 32inch monitor will look almost identical, however 1440p vs 4k on a 75inch TV, you will start noticing the difference.



Azzanation said:

I don't see why this is still a debate. On paper the X is more powerful while the PS5 is faster. However stuff we are still learning is MS is rumoured to have a better compression solution and might be easier to develop for in comparison to the PS5 etc.
Like most console generations, hardware is only as good as the developers using it. 12 TF or a super fast SSD is useless if devs don't optimise for it.

Also wanted to add, those saying you cannot tell the difference between resolutions is debatable.

As TVs get bigger, so does the differences. 1440p vs 4k on a 32inch monitor will look almost identical, however 1440p vs 4k on a 75inch TV, you will start noticing the difference.

nobody is claiming the ps5 is stronger. at most people are claiming the gap is not that big. What most are saying is that these consoles are very diferent, on paper it wont be reflected but games will probably show what all these promises actually translate to. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Reading through this article again really does leave a good impression of these specs. 

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 01 April 2020

                                                                                                             

Zoombael said:

Regarding SSD speed, recently info popped up that Microsoft has allegedly the superior compression solution (BCPack) which is better optimized for game data or something and make the gap less relevant.

That's really the puzzling thing...

The MS tech is busy "improving the BCPack software" according to his own tweets. However, the SoC is done and goes into production (if it hasn't alread been). So there is no way to change the compander hardware inside the SoC. Are MS using a hybrid software/hardware solution? Who runs the software? If it's the Zen2 core(s), then MS has lost, totally. No matter how "better" BCPack is compared to Kraken, Kraken runs on its own, the Zen2 cores in the PS5 are doing whatever the are doing, noone shoots into their cache (though I guess MS engineers have thought about that. Shooting the cpu cache with useless (de-)compression data is the last thing you'd want to happen, particularly when the cache size is significantly reduced in the consoles).

There really is a lot of information missing on how many "extra gadgets" the XSX SoC has. So far we only know that Cerny has added multiple key gadgets into the PS5's SoC. (In that context I wonder if the sound hardware can play from the ssd, freeing even more memory and cpu cycles. There must be good reasons why they have 6 priority levels in the ssd setup).



Azzanation said:

I don't see why this is still a debate. On paper the X is more powerful while the PS5 is faster. However stuff we are still learning is MS is rumoured to have a better compression solution and might be easier to develop for in comparison to the PS5 etc.
Like most console generations, hardware is only as good as the developers using it. 12 TF or a super fast SSD is useless if devs don't optimise for it.

Also wanted to add, those saying you cannot tell the difference between resolutions is debatable.

As TVs get bigger, so does the differences. 1440p vs 4k on a 32inch monitor will look almost identical, however 1440p vs 4k on a 75inch TV, you will start noticing the difference.

Ok... the Raw data throughput of these SSDs is 5.5GB/s for PS5 and 2.4GB/s for XSX. Now even if you take XSX compressed throughput nominal figure (for which includes their better texture compressor) they still end up with 4.8GB/s bandwidth equivalent of data going through that 2.4GB/s pipe. 

All that is still below the raw PS5 data throughput. PS5s compressed data throughput equivalent is 8GB/s - 9GB/s using their own not as good compression but better suited for general-purpose compression, Kraken.

As for resolution... this is one of those areas where for some reason people like to exaggerate or make the thing seem a more than it is. Like how if you listen to the average PC elitist on forums you would quickly think that every PC gamer is gaming 4K@60fps-120fps when in truth only under 5% of them actually have hardware that capable. Or you would think they all have $600+ GPUs when in reality the sweet spot for their GPUs is in the $300-$400 range where most of te GPU sales reside.

How all that relate to consoles? The majority of the TV sales fall into the 55" to 65" size. But even at sizes of 75" you will not be seeing a difference between 1900p/2052p and 4K. Cause yes, thats the worst and best it can be respectively from an 18% compute difference. So i don't even know where the 1440p vs 4K argument comes in with regards to these two next-gen consoles cnsoles because that willNEVER happen. 1440p vs 4K is like a 100% difference.