Exactly. He is basically saying that since both SDKs will improve over time, but PS5 is more dedicated, he doesn't expect Xbox to gain ground due to this. That is the reason I said he is only seeing Bias in that devs interview because of his own bias.

Not to bust your bubble here.

The SSD and Duelsense is not the reason AC V runs better on PS5. Infact it has nothing to do with Sony in general. Its a Ubisoft game thats unoptimised which is expected. I would not be suprised if the PC version runs worse than both console versions

You are correct.

The broken English of the translation made me cringe.
That and the "numbing down" of information almost made some points factually incorrect, but still got the point across I guess for those who are less technically inclined.

Developers don't need to use Direct X on the Xbox Series X, there are actually other API's, the Xbox One was the same... Sure it had Direct X, but it also had a lower-level API for developers who wanted to extract as much as they can out of the machine.

It's to early to count all the eggs before the chickens have hatched.
The thing with an SDK is it can be improved post-launch to unlock extra performance and capability... And the Xbox Series X does have the hardware edge... The Xbox Series X is a very well-tuned machine, just like the Playstation 5.

Both consoles have their Pro's and Con's when it comes to rendering a video game, both have their strengths and weaknesses and that will mostly be showcased in exclusive titles rather than multiplats.

They are both for-profit companies, I wouldn't have an allegiance to either, they won't send you cake and flowers on your birthday or care about it for that matter. :P

Nah. Microsoft and Sony's tools will both update and improve overtime as Microsoft and Sony learn more about their own hardware and it's various nuances.

Yeah Ubisoft games typically run well on a single target platform and the rest are treated like second class citizens. - Speaking as a PC gamer here... At no time should I have 10x the hardware capability of a console and get an experience that is only equivalent or even worst.

This is why Ubisoft doesn't get my support.

Mario Kart 8 on the Wii U ran with 59fps. That's an issue on a 60 hz display. Since 1/60 of the time, you had the same frame twice, which looked like stutter. And it was really distracting to me. It got fixed with the Switch version.

So far we have 6 hatched chickens (games releases, were you can compaire head to head).
5 outta the 6, run better on the PS5.

You can blame SDK and how well versions are optimised for each console.... and maybe theres truth to that (we dont know).
So far, all we know is how these games stack up head to head.

*edit: Though we have had Dirt 5, devs say the SDK was fine, and about same state for both.

"And the Xbox Series X does have the hardware edge... The Xbox Series X is a very well-tuned machine, just like the Playstation 5."

On neogaf people are saying:

1) AMD GPU's have 8-10 CU's pr Shader Array because this is most effecient (ei. drawbacks to more).
The Xbox has 14 CU's pr Shader Array, thus loseing abit of performance on this count.

2) Geometry engines are differnt between the two consoles.

3) Higher clocks on GPU, is better if say a work load, miss-fire's or isnt used.  This is like how Intel single thread performance, favored gameing for along time. (where fewer cores going faster, worked out better, than more cores but slower)

4) PS5 has Cache scrubbers, for the GPU, that allows it to dump partial loads of data. This leads to a performance increase.

5) Sony did something to the shaders. (this is just me repeating what GeordieMp wrote) Says this is apparent from Patents.

6) PS5 cpu appears to have shared cache (unified), while the same isnt true on the XSX.

7) MS sacrificed some consoles centric performance efficiencies by adding more API layers to help in their Gamepass, no-generations thinking.



This might not just all be SKD related.
if its down to hardware differnces, this could be the result for the entire gen.

While thats abit early to say, its not that far fetched, going from info we currently have.

On many multiplats, where direct comparison is possible, performance of both PS5 and XBSX versions will be liimited from the fact of being scaled up versions of games that must run as flawlessly as possible on XBSS too. In the best cases just CPU and main RAM usage will be necessarily taylored to XBSS, while graphics will be natively taylored to PS5 and XBSX and scaled down on XBSS. XBSS... More than 70 years passed and those f*ing SS keep on doing damage. The good thing is that on PC 16GB main RAM plus as much graphics RAM as each gamer wants or can afford will be totally fine for the whole next gen.

The performance isn't showing up because devs are not currently "choosing" a platform to bench. They are picking whichever suits better, and performance differences will only show once games start using the majority of GPU instead of having significant overhead for anything except ray tracing and upscaling. 

Simply put, we are not seeing the kind of game that can tax the hardware significantly. Performance difference is only going to show once the PS5 hits peak performance and the Xbox Series X can still spare going further. 

So MS have a marketing deal with Ubi for this game and said it will perform better on Xbox, but Ubi decided to prioritize PS5? Sure.

Same for the other 4 games?

I'm not blaming it on anything. I am sure we will get clarification from the "horses mouth" at some point.

Assume nothing.

I have read the AMD RDNA whitepaper and actually can understand it. - You sure you want to go down this rabbit hole?
Hint: There are Pro's and Con's to each approach, neither approach is incorrect.

And which do you think is better?
Note. I am asking what *you* think is better. I already know the answer.

Not really. Your understanding on graphics rendering pipelines is clearly limited on this front it seems.

The difference between a CPU and GPU is non-comparable.

CPU's specialize in serialized, highly complex, branching workloads that are extremely intricate.
GPU's however specialize in parallel, relatively simple workloads, but there are lots of them.

There is a reason why a GPU in 2020 is approaching 5120 "cores" where a CPU tops out at around 64 "cores" and a CPU will push higher clockrates than a GPU... Because a CPU needs to do as many instructions per clock to optimize throughput... GPU's can just blow out core counts to achieve the same.

CPU's also allocate a massive amount of die area and transistors in obfuscating memory access to keep those powerful cores fed and going, GPU's generally don't, they just allocate another task because in graphics there is always more work to be done.

The Xbox Series X can cache snoop and do the same and eject data from caches from each chip.

And what is that "something" and what is the significant of that "something?"
Stay tuned. Because right now, no one knows.

RDNA is built on top of the GCN foundations that the Xbox One and Playstation 4 came with, it's actually a highly modular design, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some customization in order to bolster backwards compatibility.

That is because the Xbox Series X is using standard Zen CCX's.

We are not sure if the Playstation 5 is doing the same yet, no point speculating without all the facts laid out on the table.

This has always been the case.

The Original Xbox launched with Direct X 8 (Or rather a derivative of such) and a low-level API, developers had the option to use whatever suited their development goals, Direct X allowed for easier development at the expense of performance.
But developers could also use the low-level API which resulted in games like Half Life 2, Morrowind, Doom looking like the ducks nuts at the time.

The Xbox 360 launched with Direct X 9 (Or rather a derivative of such) and it's own low level, the start of the generation every developer and their pet cat was running with Direct X, but towards the end of the generation developers *had* to use the low-level API to make games like Halo 4 possible.

The Xbox One launched with Direct X and it's own low-level API's as well, both of which received refinement and updates during the entire generation, developers initially started out leveraging Direct X, in-fact many smaller-scale titles still use Direct X, especially indies.

But any game pushing graphics boundries are using the low-level API.

Contrary to popular belief the Xbox has more than just Direct X.


And Sony is no fucking different.

The Playstation 4 for example has LibGNM as it's low-level high-performing API, But the console also has Vulkan and OpenGL (Direct X 12 and 11 competitors essentially.)
Developers who wish to push the graphics envelope are obviously using LibGNM, where-as earlier launch titles relied on Vulkan or OpenGL... And many smaller scale games, especially indie are relying on Vulkan and OpenGL even today.

And the exact same thing exists on the Playstation 5.

So whilst you are criticizing the Xbox for doing something... You have been absolutely blinded to the fact that Sony does the *exact* same thing, they are all different tools to help different types of developers to build and release games for a platform.

Consider yourself educated on this topic... And hopefully no more FUD gets spread.

Agreed. It might not be SDK related.

I would rather not speculate and spread false information until we have enough evidence in hand to substantiate something.

Alby_da_Wolf said: On many multiplats, where direct comparison is possible, performance of both PS5 and XBSX versions will be liimited from the fact of being scaled up versions of games that must run as flawlessly as possible on XBSS too. In the best cases just CPU and main RAM usage will be necessarily taylored to XBSS, while graphics will be natively taylored to PS5 and XBSX and scaled down on XBSS. XBSS... More than 70 years passed and those f*ing SS keep on doing damage. The good thing is that on PC 16GB main RAM plus as much graphics RAM as each gamer wants or can afford will be totally fine for the whole next gen.

16 GB system ram isn't really enough for FS2020, I will go for 24 or 32 GB for my next pc or laptop. Windows 10 currently uses a 26 GB page file on my SSD to keep FS2020 and Firefox co-existing. When I had a smaller page file on my HDD the game slowed down to a crawl and/or crashed.

Task manager only shows it having 6 GB in use atm (saw it up to 10GB before), but I never trust that number. It never adds up to what's in use in total or why such a large page file is necessary, but it is necessary or it crashes. Committed 32.7 GB / 39.9 GB.