By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS Executive says Devs will need to learn how to work around Slower SSD on XSX

Hynad said:

@ bolded: Both mean the same thing.

@ the rest: If you drive your car at its speed limit of 200mph and I speed past you with mine at 400mph (twice more), would you agree I smoked you? Or would you say your car is comparable to mine because I'm not topping at 2000mph (10x more)?

Odd comparison because of a couple reasons.

#1 A car with twice the horsepower does not mean it has double the top speed. There is a lot more to a car's performance than one thing.

#2 PS5 has 1 advantage over the XSX (SSD) where as the XSX has 4 advantages over the PS5 (CPU, GPU, RAM, Bandwidth)

DonFerrari said:

He was fighting before entering the portal and after. I don't really see a reason for him to be fightining inside the portal (since it the jump takes seconds) but sure it could happen, but the fact that it didn't doesn't prove it is scripted.

You want to count it twice? It have RAM advantage and bandwidth? The RAM ammount is the same, while PS5 have a single speed and XSX on the 10Gb have a little faster but on the 6Gb (that won`t be all for OS) is slowe. The difference in the 10GB speed is close to the difference in GPU so it is basically a match to keep it feed.

You are assuming one or the other throttle. You didn`t really understood Cerny explanation. The speed on the GPU and CPU can be sustained for as long as is necessary, that is it. And if because of load to keep the thermal level they can achieve over 10% saving in power with only 2% decrease in the clock.

Actually SSD does that. When it stream better quality assets (including texture) it helps to make better quality pixels, it doesn`t help on the computational capability thought. By having twice the speed it can stream much larger textures (higher quality).

Correct, he was fighting before and after the rifting, showing me him flying through multiple different worlds without any form of interaction aside from moving left and right makes this no different to a load screen than we play rather than watch. Its cool tech if it works but this is a 1st party exclusive so it defeats the purpose of comparisons because we wont see a XSX or PC version of the game.

Games will be using all 8 to 10gigs of the Ram in these consoles as that's the next gen leap, XSX and PS5 has more Ram to utilised however I highly doubt we will see games running 14, 15 or 16gig ram games. The slower Ram in the XSX will be for OS and extra if required for games. Remember majority of games will be designed around the average spec PC not just the PS5 or XSX, that's why I strongly believe next gen games will be using 8 to 10gigs.

XSX doesn't have to throttle which to mean sounds like a greater advantage than to have the throttling. The fact the XSX across the board is more powerful all round means that for the PS5 to render the same games, it will be throttling between CPU and GPU to help keep up where as the XSX will just run the games at full throttle all the time. Now I am not a tech head but that's what it sounds like to me.

Both XSX and PS5 have very fast SSDs, so unless we see evidence that the PS5 can load up better textures than the XSX, it becomes hyperbole. What we will see is 1st party games utilise this technology which again defeats the purpose of the comparison because the games that will fully utilised the tech wont be coming to other devices anyway. From what we saw at the PS5 reveal was nothing a current high end PC could not render even on a slower SSD than what's in the XSX. 

eva01beserk said:

Like hyna said, they are both refering to the same thing. Keep in mind, neither sony or ms are doing much in the way of ray tracing, they are both buying AMD's solution so both will use the same hardware. Now on the software side, it could be possible that they both do their own thing, MS already said that they have improvements done with direct x ultimate, from sony we dont know any more.

Now again, with the ssd it definetly could increase quality. Like I said before, If 12gb of ram is available, the inmage does not use all 12gb. they save some ram for data that will be used on the future so as to not load from storage the entire chunk as it would take to long. Thanks too SSD tech they are both using is unknown how much ram needs to be separated, but before it was 50/50. What ever that amount is now, we know at the very least that the ps5 is way faster so less ram needs to be reserved so thats already extra ram the ps5 could use to improbe visuals. Sony is claiming that they dont need to reserve any ram as the ssd is fast enough while ms claims that its not true and they will both still do it but the ps5 will still be faster and would be good enough. From that PR from each alone we can deduce that at the very least the ps5 will have more ram free for visuals. If what sony's statement are true and they dont need to reserve n ram at all and at the same time off load some proceses to be made directly from storage without needing to load to ram first, then the amount of available ram for the ps5 is gona be huge. enough to show some serious diference on top to also remove load times. But again, we have to wait and see.

Are they the same thing? because this is why I am asking the question. What comes up on Google suggests different.

Google: Hardware acceleration makes a big difference. But the real distinction isn't between hardware and software, but between GPU acceleration with and without dedicated RT Cores. You don't need specialized hardware to do ray tracing, but you want it.

Google: In computing, hardware acceleration is the use of computer hardware specially made to perform some functions more efficiently than is possible in software running on a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU).

If its accelerated than why wouldn't Sony mention it in the spec charts? From what I am gathering here is that Hardware based requires GPU resources to render where as acceraleted doesnt or not much of.. again that's just what it sounds like to me.

Last edited by Bonzinga - on 18 June 2020

Around the Network
Bonzinga said:

I am only going with what's stated in the marketing. Xbox claims Hardware Accelerated while Sony claims Hardware-Based. As seen Below.

Maybe Sony has figured out a solution but lets remember that the PS5 is only twice as fast as the XSX, its not 10x faster making it impossible for the PS5 to do things the XSX cannot do. Also games will be made with Ram limitations in mind so expect next gen games to be designed around 8 to 10gigs of Ram. Sure maybe Sony can use more resources however its going to be 1st party techniques and paid exclusives. We all know that when it comes to 1st party games, all platform holders have great looking 1st party games and will make no difference to the end user because 1st party games don't appear on rival platforms making comparisons impossible.

Hardware accelerated and hardware based are highly likely to mean the exact same thing in this instance.
Don't hold much credit in marketing teams.

DonFerrari said:

He was fighting before entering the portal and after. I don't really see a reason for him to be fightining inside the portal (since it the jump takes seconds) but sure it could happen, but the fact that it didn't doesn't prove it is scripted.

To be fair... It's nothing new.
I was fighting Ultimecia in Final Fantasy 8 just a few days ago and we were warping from place to place during the fight.
That's a Playstation 1 game with 300kb/s of optical disk bandwidth and Ram measured in mere megabytes. (Obviously I was playing it on Switch though.)

DonFerrari said:

You want to count it twice? It have RAM advantage and bandwidth? The RAM ammount is the same, while PS5 have a single speed and XSX on the 10Gb have a little faster but on the 6Gb (that won`t be all for OS) is slowe. The difference in the 10GB speed is close to the difference in GPU so it is basically a match to keep it feed.

There are going to be some memory operations which will show some significant advantages in the faster memory space on the Xbox Series X, but like you alluded to, the Xbox Series X also needs that extra bandwidth due to it's higher levels of processing capabilities.

We don't yet know how much Ram will be reserved for OS/Background duties, hopefully it's the same as 8th gen or even a regression, this new generation will likely end up being memory limited by the time we end it.

DonFerrari said:

You are assuming one or the other throttle. You didn`t really understood Cerny explanation. The speed on the GPU and CPU can be sustained for as long as is necessary, that is it. And if because of load to keep the thermal level they can achieve over 10% saving in power with only 2% decrease in the clock.

Cerny's explanation isn't really elaborating on every single possible scenario though.

The fact is, even when you have a GPU's compute pegged at 100% there are often parts of the GPU (I.E. Fixed function units) which are being underutilized, which is spare TDP, that TDP can then be funneled into the CPU or GPU's clockrate rather than let it go to waste.

For example, there is the very real possibility that not all games will leverage the Playstation 5's Ray Tracing cores, but will still use the GPU to it's fullest extent, like the Unreal Engine 5 demonstration... That's allot of spare compute and energy on the table, so in those instances, we might as well use the energy that would be used for those Ray Tracing cores to bolster CPU and GPU clockrates.

It's a more efficient use of limited resources essentially.

But it does add some variability in the Playstation 5's hardware design and there is the very real possibility that when the hardware is pegged at 100% across the entire system, that clockrates will be reduced by a set amount. - But we will need to wait and see what that amount is.

SmartShift though is essentially a Thermal Dissipating Power rule that the entire console needs to adhere to, so if any component isn't being 100% utilized, energy can be shifted to another area to increase overall performance.

If the Playstation 5 was able to maintain it's clockrates and performance constantly irrespective of TDP or utilization, then Smartshift is a redundant technology, but because it's a front-and-center feature... Well. You get the idea.

DonFerrari said:

Actually SSD does that. When it stream better quality assets (including texture) it helps to make better quality pixels, it doesn`t help on the computational capability thought. By having twice the speed it can stream much larger textures (higher quality).

The SSD in the Playstation 5 is a sizable advantage... Especially over time.

In 30 seconds worth of streaming the Xbox Series X's storage can transfer a maximum of 72GB of uncompressed data.
In 30 seconds worth of streaming the Playstation 5's storage can transfer a maximum of 165GB of uncompressed data.

That's an advantage of 93GB of extra data that can be shown on-screen in a 30- second block for the Playstation 5, which is a massive amount of data... Streaming data isn't just streaming for a few moments and stopping, it's a constant, especially when you are optimizing for that aspect extensively. (I.E Open world games.)

Obviously other factors will come into play like decompressed data, the types of data, random reads, OS and I/O overheads and more which will skew the results for either hardware platform.

So whilst comparing 2.4GB/s to 5.5GB/s doesn't seem significant, it's actually a really significant number... When you account for it over time.

But then again the 20% extra compute performance the Xbox Series X is also a significant advantage... And that too can be cycled over multiple frames by deferring operations, so that 2 Teraflops worth of compute time can turn into 6 teraflop advantage for instance.

Both consoles have advantages and disadvantages over each other and that will drive competition and innovation for the first party/exclusives to push innovative rendering approaches.

I.E. Halo vs Uncharted from the 7th gen all over again.

Exciting times.

Bonzinga said:

Google: Hardware acceleration makes a big difference. But the real distinction isn't between hardware and software, but between GPU acceleration with and without dedicated RT Cores. You don't need specialized hardware to do ray tracing, but you want it.

We have basically come full circle in the GPU space.
Originally the best approach was to have all units (Vertex+Pixel+Texture+ROP) units separate, then around the Geforce 8/Radeon HD 2000 series, AMD and nVidia essentially agreed that the best approach was to combine the Vertex+Pixel operations into the same unit to consolidate compute resources.

With the advent of the Radeon 9000 series, AMD essentially rolled TnL into the shader pipelines... nVidia invested resources into maintaining that as a dedicated fixed-function block on the Geforce FX at the expense of shader resources. (A mistake they rectified with the Geforce 6.)

And now we are seeing the bifurcation of processing resources again.

Over time shader resources have become more plentiful and have become more programmable, so I am going to go out on a limp and assert that at some point nVidia and AMD will reach a point where it simply makes sense to roll the RT processing into the shader cores... The shader cores can already do it, it's just don't have the appropriate level of specialization to do it efficiently, not while they are still tasked to handle regular rasterization as well.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 18 June 2020

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Bonzinga said:

I am only going with what's stated in the marketing. Xbox claims Hardware Accelerated while Sony claims Hardware-Based. As seen Below.

Maybe Sony has figured out a solution but lets remember that the PS5 is only twice as fast as the XSX, its not 10x faster making it impossible for the PS5 to do things the XSX cannot do. Also games will be made with Ram limitations in mind so expect next gen games to be designed around 8 to 10gigs of Ram. Sure maybe Sony can use more resources however its going to be 1st party techniques and paid exclusives. We all know that when it comes to 1st party games, all platform holders have great looking 1st party games and will make no difference to the end user because 1st party games don't appear on rival platforms making comparisons impossible.

Hardware accelerated and hardware based are highly likely to mean the exact same thing in this instance.
Don't hold much credit in marketing teams.

DonFerrari said:

He was fighting before entering the portal and after. I don't really see a reason for him to be fightining inside the portal (since it the jump takes seconds) but sure it could happen, but the fact that it didn't doesn't prove it is scripted.

To be fair... It's nothing new.
I was fighting Ultimecia in Final Fantasy 8 just a few days ago and we were warping from place to place during the fight.
That's a Playstation 1 game with 300kb/s of optical disk bandwidth and Ram measured in mere megabytes. (Obviously I was playing it on Switch though.)

DonFerrari said:

You want to count it twice? It have RAM advantage and bandwidth? The RAM ammount is the same, while PS5 have a single speed and XSX on the 10Gb have a little faster but on the 6Gb (that won`t be all for OS) is slowe. The difference in the 10GB speed is close to the difference in GPU so it is basically a match to keep it feed.

There are going to be some memory operations which will show some significant advantages in the faster memory space on the Xbox Series X, but like you alluded to, the Xbox Series X also needs that extra bandwidth due to it's higher levels of processing capabilities.

We don't yet know how much Ram will be reserved for OS/Background duties, hopefully it's the same as 8th gen or even a regression, this new generation will likely end up being memory limited by the time we end it.

DonFerrari said:

You are assuming one or the other throttle. You didn`t really understood Cerny explanation. The speed on the GPU and CPU can be sustained for as long as is necessary, that is it. And if because of load to keep the thermal level they can achieve over 10% saving in power with only 2% decrease in the clock.

Cerny's explanation isn't really elaborating on every single possible scenario though.

The fact is, even when you have a GPU's compute pegged at 100% there are often parts of the GPU (I.E. Fixed function units) which are being underutilized, which is spare TDP, that TDP can then be funneled into the CPU or GPU's clockrate rather than let it go to waste.

For example, there is the very real possibility that not all games will leverage the Playstation 5's Ray Tracing cores, but will still use the GPU to it's fullest extent, like the Unreal Engine 5 demonstration... That's allot of spare compute and energy on the table, so in those instances, we might as well use the energy that would be used for those Ray Tracing cores to bolster CPU and GPU clockrates.

It's a more efficient use of limited resources essentially.

But it does add some variability in the Playstation 5's hardware design and there is the very real possibility that when the hardware is pegged at 100% across the entire system, that clockrates will be reduced by a set amount. - But we will need to wait and see what that amount is.

SmartShift though is essentially a Thermal Dissipating Power rule that the entire console needs to adhere to, so if any component isn't being 100% utilized, energy can be shifted to another area to increase overall performance.

If the Playstation 5 was able to maintain it's clockrates and performance constantly irrespective of TDP or utilization, then Smartshift is a redundant technology, but because it's a front-and-center feature... Well. You get the idea.

DonFerrari said:

Actually SSD does that. When it stream better quality assets (including texture) it helps to make better quality pixels, it doesn`t help on the computational capability thought. By having twice the speed it can stream much larger textures (higher quality).

The SSD in the Playstation 5 is a sizable advantage... Especially over time.

In 30 seconds worth of streaming the Xbox Series X's storage can transfer a maximum of 72GB of uncompressed data.
In 30 seconds worth of streaming the Playstation 5's storage can transfer a maximum of 165GB of uncompressed data.

That's an advantage of 93GB of extra data that can be shown on-screen in a 30- second block for the Playstation 5, which is a massive amount of data... Streaming data isn't just streaming for a few moments and stopping, it's a constant, especially when you are optimizing for that aspect extensively. (I.E Open world games.)

Obviously other factors will come into play like decompressed data, the types of data, random reads, OS and I/O overheads and more which will skew the results for either hardware platform.

So whilst comparing 2.4GB/s to 5.5GB/s doesn't seem significant, it's actually a really significant number... When you account for it over time.

But then again the 20% extra compute performance the Xbox Series X is also a significant advantage... And that too can be cycled over multiple frames by deferring operations, so that 2 Teraflops worth of compute time can turn into 6 teraflop advantage for instance.

Both consoles have advantages and disadvantages over each other and that will drive competition and innovation for the first party/exclusives to push innovative rendering approaches.

I.E. Halo vs Uncharted from the 7th gen all over again.

Exciting times.

Bonzinga said:

Google: Hardware acceleration makes a big difference. But the real distinction isn't between hardware and software, but between GPU acceleration with and without dedicated RT Cores. You don't need specialized hardware to do ray tracing, but you want it.

We have basically come full circle in the GPU space.
Originally the best approach was to have all units (Vertex+Pixel+Texture+ROP) units separate, then around the Geforce 8/Radeon HD 2000 series, AMD and nVidia essentially agreed that the best approach was to combine the Vertex+Pixel operations into the same unit to consolidate compute resources.

With the advent of the Radeon 9000 series, AMD essentially rolled TnL into the shader pipelines... nVidia invested resources into maintaining that as a dedicated fixed-function block on the Geforce FX at the expense of shader resources. (A mistake they rectified with the Geforce 6.)

And now we are seeing the bifurcation of processing resources again.

Over time shader resources have become more plentiful and have become more programmable, so I am going to go out on a limp and assert that at some point nVidia and AMD will reach a point where it simply makes sense to roll the RT processing into the shader cores... The shader cores can already do it, it's just don't have the appropriate level of specialization to do it efficiently, not while they are still tasked to handle regular rasterization as well.

Can't disagree with your explanation. Just wanted to point out that being both architectures balanced (which is what I expect them to be) then texture quality would be PS5 advantage due to the capacity to stream larger (better) textures and the geometry is something uncertain since as you explained XSX have likely more capacity to draw geometries but then Nanite like feature is dependant on the SSD and I/O speed.

The great question that I believe you agree depends on the games revealed along the gen is how much the I/O interface can help the result. As said if the SSD can send better quality assets due to the speed advantage then perhaps the GPU and CPU can do a little less work could it alleviate some of the disparity? I do understand SSD doesn't do any computation so the performance GAP will always exist, but could the optimization done by devs take care of some of it? Probably not and for the whole gen we will see some advantage on the pixel count, framerate consistency, but for games where both can achieve 4k30fps where would the 10-20% difference go? What type of effects could be leveraged on this type of GPU difference in PC?



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

Can't disagree with your explanation. Just wanted to point out that being both architectures balanced (which is what I expect them to be) then texture quality would be PS5 advantage due to the capacity to stream larger (better) textures and the geometry is something uncertain since as you explained XSX have likely more capacity to draw geometries but then Nanite like feature is dependant on the SSD and I/O speed.

The great question that I believe you agree depends on the games revealed along the gen is how much the I/O interface can help the result. As said if the SSD can send better quality assets due to the speed advantage then perhaps the GPU and CPU can do a little less work could it alleviate some of the disparity? I do understand SSD doesn't do any computation so the performance GAP will always exist, but could the optimization done by devs take care of some of it? Probably not and for the whole gen we will see some advantage on the pixel count, framerate consistency, but for games where both can achieve 4k30fps where would the 10-20% difference go? What type of effects could be leveraged on this type of GPU difference in PC?

There is plenty stuff that can be improved with the difference. More particle effects, higher res alpha effects like volumetric smoke and fog. Sharper shadows for a bit longer range. It will be minimal, ps5 higher res textures, xsx better covering up the textures with effects.



SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

Can't disagree with your explanation. Just wanted to point out that being both architectures balanced (which is what I expect them to be) then texture quality would be PS5 advantage due to the capacity to stream larger (better) textures and the geometry is something uncertain since as you explained XSX have likely more capacity to draw geometries but then Nanite like feature is dependant on the SSD and I/O speed.

The great question that I believe you agree depends on the games revealed along the gen is how much the I/O interface can help the result. As said if the SSD can send better quality assets due to the speed advantage then perhaps the GPU and CPU can do a little less work could it alleviate some of the disparity? I do understand SSD doesn't do any computation so the performance GAP will always exist, but could the optimization done by devs take care of some of it? Probably not and for the whole gen we will see some advantage on the pixel count, framerate consistency, but for games where both can achieve 4k30fps where would the 10-20% difference go? What type of effects could be leveraged on this type of GPU difference in PC?

There is plenty stuff that can be improved with the difference. More particle effects, higher res alpha effects like volumetric smoke and fog. Sharper shadows for a bit longer range. It will be minimal, ps5 higher res textures, xsx better covering up the textures with effects.

Great, because usually on VGC (I don't have a gaming PC) we see comparisons of the fps on normal, high, ultra, etc. But I was curious on a 10-20% difference on horsepower (here let's pretend the TFlop is a direct correlation to general power) and both games have to achieve "the same" framerate and resolution how much could be done better with the power discrepancy, because we know that devs try to minimize their cost and time so it needs to be good bang for buck investment of the power dif.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Can't disagree with your explanation. Just wanted to point out that being both architectures balanced (which is what I expect them to be) then texture quality would be PS5 advantage due to the capacity to stream larger (better) textures and the geometry is something uncertain since as you explained XSX have likely more capacity to draw geometries but then Nanite like feature is dependant on the SSD and I/O speed.

Playstation 5 could have better geometry capabilities. It depends on how many geometry units each console has (I am just waiting on Big Navi to know more details) and the clockspeeds they run at.
Every component on a GPU runs at the core clock or a multiple/division of that... The Playstation 5 undoubtedly has an advantage in clockrate... So whatever units are "Kept equal" the Playstation 5 will have an advantage in.
For example... The Playstation 5's GPU has a higher Pixel fillrate than the Xbox Series X as they both have the same number of ROP's, it's just the Playstation 5's ROP's operate at a higher clock.

DonFerrari said:

The great question that I believe you agree depends on the games revealed along the gen is how much the I/O interface can help the result. As said if the SSD can send better quality assets due to the speed advantage then perhaps the GPU and CPU can do a little less work could it alleviate some of the disparity? I do understand SSD doesn't do any computation so the performance GAP will always exist, but could the optimization done by devs take care of some of it? Probably not and for the whole gen we will see some advantage on the pixel count, framerate consistency, but for games where both can achieve 4k30fps where would the 10-20% difference go? What type of effects could be leveraged on this type of GPU difference in PC?

There is a ton that can be done with that compute disparity, better lighting, shadowing, particle effects, physics, procedural generation, post-process, anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering and so forth.
It's not an insignificant disparity in compute, just like the SSD isn't an insignificant disparity.

The SSD isn't going to reduce the GPU's work though... That isn't how data or processing works.

The SSD is assisting in the delivering of the "work" to the GPU and does so at a faster pace than other prior methods... One of the largest investments a GPU or CPU manufacturer does isn't actually making the CPU/GPU faster, it's ensuring that the data is available for processing. It's making them more efficient by ensuring there is always work available.

Extremely fast CPU's for example will actually spend the majority of it's transistors on technology to keep the data close to the cores with caches, or to guess the data required for processing ahead of time via things branch tree prediction and so forth...
Because retrieving memory from RAM is a ton of wasted clock cycles.. We could be talking 50~ billion or more potential instructions going to waste here on a modern design, hardly ideal.

... And that is retrieving data from RAM. - The hit from retrieving data from disk is an even more pronounced issue... But thankfully doesn't happen very often.

In short, the SSD will ensure that the RAM is consistently fed with the required data and will be more effective at doing so over time than the Xbox Series X.

But if we were to put it in the Unreal Engine 5 demonstration terms... The Xbox Series X will hold significant advantages in the lighting/Lumen department, where the Playstation 5 should hold the advantage with Nanite... That's not to say the Xbox Series X won't still have an impressive showcase with Nanite or the Playstation 5 can't impress with Lumen, but that is generally where the strengths of each console lay.


For the most part though in cross-platform titles, the Xbox Series X may take advantage of higher PC graphics settings and sink it's extra performance chasing higher framerates and resolution and the Playstation 5 will have shorter load times when the CPU or other component isn't a bottleneck. (Loading is more than just storage remember!)

It's the first party AAA where the strengths/weaknesses of each hardware platform will become more pronounced.

DonFerrari said:

Great, because usually on VGC (I don't have a gaming PC) we see comparisons of the fps on normal, high, ultra, etc. But I was curious on a 10-20% difference on horsepower (here let's pretend the TFlop is a direct correlation to general power) and both games have to achieve "the same" framerate and resolution how much could be done better with the power discrepancy, because we know that devs try to minimize their cost and time so it needs to be good bang for buck investment of the power dif.

Need to account for the differences over time, this is stuff that black and white spec sheets can't really properly explain.

In a deferred renderer for example various operations get deferred over time... It's why Battlefield 3 looked as good as it did on the Xbox 360/Playstation 3. (Plus lots of baked information too.)

So that 2 Teraflop/20% disparity will grow over multiple cycles to potentially 6 Teraflops, just like the SSD GB/s bandwidth disparity grows over multiple cycles.


But then I used the key word "baked".
The Playstation 5 can bake GI/Shadowing into some extremely high resolution assets that will look the goods as it has the bandwidth available to pull it off.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--