Just for giggles, what percentage of multiplatform games do people think will perform better on PS5 vs. XSX? I put it under 5%. Can't wait to see cyberpunk.
Official Thread Pillow Fight that nobody wins with MOAR Jackie Chan and guys comfortable with STRETCHING their sexuality!
- Thread starter The Living Tribunal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apple pc playstation sexuality xbox
- Status
Just for giggles, what percentage of multiplatform games do people think will perform better on PS5 vs. XSX? I put it under 5%. Can't wait to see cyberpunk.
This thread is a s*** show 
I love it.
Getting some 2013 misterxmedia vibes from across the web.
I love it.
Getting some 2013 misterxmedia vibes from across the web.
That's what I would hope for, just like they are using it to add HDR. That post was supposed to have a link to a vid on DLSS.
Last edited:
I see a lot of definitive statements. Bottom line is there is a lot of new and custom tech that we cant really know how it'll manifest.
Only one way to know, and it would be nice if people could couch their theories in a voice that's a little more aware of how ignorant we are to how these things actually work.
Only one way to know, and it would be nice if people could couch their theories in a voice that's a little more aware of how ignorant we are to how these things actually work.
I got you confused with somebody else.
I definitely think that the Xbox GPU is faster. I didn't think it was that much better, but that opinion is changing as I take in new information.
Wow, it seems like they really out maneuvered Sony at ever turn. Cerny is a really smart guy, but he's just barely keeping up with Microsoft's massive R&D.
Last edited:
This thread is a s*** show
I love it.
Getting some 2013 misterxmedia vibes from across the web.
Now you understand the method to my madness!!! Give people the bloodbath they deserve as well as the spectacle!
On a side note no one has been banned yet so thank you everyone for keeping it civil.
I was a bit skeptical of it knowing that he is associated with Dealer, but he cited good sources. At the end of the day, If Sony doesn't show that they have an answer to variable rate shading or that they have tools to implement artificial intelligence upscaling they will be at a huge disadvantage. Nothing fanboyish about that.
A dev who used 2 work for Sony and now works with MS has BS written all over it.
We have both posted more reliable video's.
Oh yeah I don't look for 3rd parties to exploit it all that much, they'll probably do a little work to get more out of it than XSX but they won't build their engines around it so they probably won't be going too far beyond what the XSX allows, thankfully that's still quite a jump from where we are now. This is one area where the XSX (and PC) could be holding PS5 back when it comes to 3rd party games anyway.
I know one thing I'm looking forward to playing an Elder Scrolls game where we don't have to sit through loading screens when we pass through doors and gates or an Assassin's Creed game where we have to sit through loads for missions to start up and having LOD's pushed further out is also going to be a nice upgrade.
Last edited:
Perform better in what way? frame rate? They'll probably be equal for the most part, textures? again probably the same, LOD could possibly be better on PS5, use of RT? that'd be in the XSX column no doubt but when it comes to how all of this adds up on screen it'll probably be negligible with 3rd party games. I'm looking forward to what Sony is doing with their first party studios and also curious to see what MS does especially with the rumored new fable game.
No reason for it to get out of hand, hell we haven't seen a single next gen game running on either console yet, we are all basically going off of 2nd or 3rd hand info that may or may not be true so it's hard to get too worked up one way or the other.
It's not faster so that's wrong to begin with, the PS5 GPU won't dip down to the speed of the XSX GPU, the Xbox GPU has more CU's but it runs slower.
Based on what we were being told for many months prior to the reveal, the SSD is a big deal...in both consoles. It will be on the PC as well. Star Citizen already highlighted that. Regardless of focus, SSD's will be a big deal in true next gen games. Specifically open world games. There's no point in downplaying it. Both are using it in similar ways with their own "exclusive" name for how they're accomplishing the use of SSD's as a cache/scratch pad. Instant texture loading, the reduction in load on CPU, the ability to eliminate in-game loading screens...it will be in multiplatform games and even Bill Stillwell himself, who's just now leaving the Xbox team, came on a podcast over the weekend and said the SSDs are the biggest deal in next gen machines. So people who are downplaying it are doing so based on not understanding what the real industry folks are saying.
It isn't a processor. It won't draw textures. It's not a GPU multiplier. Cerny didn't say it. Neither did any dev. (I know you haven't either.) GPU and CPU still determine the power.
Nobody has demonstrated that the sweet spot is between 40x I/O speeds (Series X) and 80x I/O speeds (PS5). Nobody has been able to demonstrate a potential game design bottleneck between those speeds based on what the GPU and CPU is capable of pushing out. Nobody has been able to demonstrate a memory bottleneck with new compression techniques. Nobody has shown whether the 10GB instant textures is or is not enough. Haven't heard one credible person...not even non-credible Youtubers explain where that sweet spot exists. Instead they're assuming Xbox One is lacking these features completely. They both have the ability to instant load a large amount of textures instantly using new methods.
Until anyone is able to put true next gen games to the test, it will be hard to prove whether the I/O speeds ever come into play outside of load times. Until the GPUs and CPUs are tested with next gen detail, ray tracing, physics, etc...it will be difficult to prove whether any difference in GPU matters to most. Those true next gen games may not be available this year. By the time anything is proven, none of this will matter because talent >>>> power. People will turn to the 1st and 2nd party platform exclusives.
When consumers refer to speed, they're generally referring to performance. Frequency is just one piece to that performance equation. Xbox GPU with it's extra CUs will push out the same stuff faster.
When 98% of multiplats looks and runs better on xsx the denial in this thread will reach nuclear levels lol
I meant in terms of actual performance not the ghz or clock speed.
This thread is a s*** show
I love it.
Getting some 2013 misterxmedia vibes from across the web.
Misterxmedia? Was that the place everybody went to when Plainview Permabanned them from TeamXbox?
I didn't give too much weight to a dev saying one console performs better than the other. I was impressed with the features like the velocity architecture. The fact that they have variable rate shading implemented into the velocity architecture really made me think that they will make all those features a standard on the Xbox on day one.
Primitive shaders, variable rate shading, and AI upscaling will give substantial leaps in performance, but I understand that all of this can be done on the PS5 hardware as well. It's just up to developers to make it work and there is no reason to think that a major developer like Ubisoft, Rockstar, or Activision wouldn't have AI upscaling, variable rate shading, or primitive shaders implemented into their engines in games running on the PS5.
Last edited:
Xbox Champion edition is the winner in power. With a boastful company like Sony ( I don't hate Sony, I have a PS4 over XBOX 1), you can bet they will shout from their rooftop if PS5 is in fact better.
If MS can show games, they have a chance to be a more respectable close 3 place, or even sell better than the 1 third of Sony PS sales number this gen.
If MS can show games, they have a chance to be a more respectable close 3 place, or even sell better than the 1 third of Sony PS sales number this gen.
yes Maybe. That’s the place where blueviolet/mistercteam(same person) is the tech “expert” and said s*** like there was a second hidden GPU that was hidden in the Xbox one that was waiting to be activated once software was ready or something along those lines.
Exclusive: PS5 to Receive Terafloppy Disks, Proprietary Hardware That Will Boost Teraflops Count
Optional add-on will enhance PS5 GPU power
www.pushsquare.com
Game changer right here...
Few people design games with add-on in mind.Exclusive: PS5 to Receive Terafloppy Disks, Proprietary Hardware That Will Boost Teraflops Count
Optional add-on will enhance PS5 GPU power
Game changer right here...
Multiplats won't use the SSD benefits of PS5 to enhance gameplay because XSX cannot do the same so PS5 versions will be held back/parity.
The REAL teller will be exclusives and you can quote this post.
The best looking games will be on the PS5 and in some cases expect a significant visual advantage over XSX exclusives.
The spin/excuses will be real!
Analyse This: The Next Gen Consoles (Part 9) [UPDATED]
So, the Xbox Series X is mostly unveiled at this point, with only some questions regarding audio implementation and underlying graphics...
hole-in-my-head.blogspot.com
Yawn
You really are sucking the skin off that PS5 SSD aren't ya?
Like a record, baby.Analyse This: The Next Gen Consoles (Part 9) [UPDATED]
So, the Xbox Series X is mostly unveiled at this point, with only some questions regarding audio implementation and underlying graphics...
Yawn
no rebuttal
EDIT:
RAM
Let me put this bluntly - the memory configuration on the Series X is sub-optimal.
I understand there are rumours that the SX had 24 GB or 20 GB at some point early in its design process but the credible leaks have always pointed to 16 GB which means that, if this was the case, it was very early on in the development of the console. So what are we (and developers) stuck with? 16 GB of GDDR6 @ 14 GHz connected to a 320-bit bus (that's 5 x 64-bit memory controllers).
Microsoft is touting the 10 GB @ 560 GB/s and 6 GB @ 336 GB/s asymmetric configuration as a bonus but it's sort-of not. We've had this specific situation at least once before in the form of the NVidia GTX 650 Ti and a similar situation in the form of the 660 Ti. Both of those cards suffered from an asymmetrical configuration, affecting memory once the "symmetrical" portion of the interface was "full".
 |
This diagram was updated to reflect the error I made below, by counting the 4x1 GB chips twice. Effective, averaged access drops to 280 GB/s when equal switching is performed across the two address spaces... I was over-estimating it before.
Now, you may be asking what I mean by "full". Well, it comes down to two things: first is that, unlike some commentators might believe, the maximum bandwidth of the interface is limited to the 320-bit controllers and the matching 10 chips x 32 bit/pin x 14 GHz/Gbps interface of the GDDR6 memory.
That means that the maximum theoretical bandwidth is 560 GB/s, not 896 GB/s (560 + 336). Secondly, memory has to be interleaved in order to function on a given clock timing to improve the parallelism of the configuration. Interleaving is why you don't get a single 16 GB RAM chip, instead we get multiple 1 GB or 2 GB chips because it's vastly more efficient. HBM is a different story because the dies are parallel with multiple channels per pin and multiple frequencies are possible to be run across each chip in a stack, unlike DDR/GDDR which has to have all chips run at the same frequency.
However, what this means is that you need to have address space symmetry in order have interleaving of the RAM, i.e. you need to have all your chips presenting the same "capacity" of memory in order for it to work. Looking at the diagram above, you can see the SX's configuration, the first 1 GB of each RAM chip is interleaved across the entire 320-bit memory interface, giving rise to 10 GB operating with a bandwidth of 560 GB/s but what about the other 6 GB of RAM?
Those two banks of three chips either side of the processor house 2 GB per chip. How does that extra 1 GB get accessed? It can't be accessed at the same time as the first 1 GB because the memory interface is saturated. What happens, instead, is that the memory controller must instead "switch" to the interleaved addressable space covered by those 6x 1 GB portions. This means that, for the 6 GB "slower" memory (in reality, it's not slower but less wide) the memory interface must address that on a separate clock cycle if it wants to be accessed at the full width of the available bus.
The fallout of this can be quite complicated depending on how Microsoft have worked out their memory bus architecture. It could be a complete "switch" whereby on one clock cycle the memory interface uses the interleaved 10 GB portion and on the following clock cycle it accesses the 6 GB portion. This implementation would have the effect of averaging the effective bandwidth for all the memory. If you average this access, you get 280
 |
However, there is another scenario with memory being assigned to each portion based on availability. In this configuration, the memory bandwidth (and access) is dependent on how much RAM is in use. Below 10 GB, the RAM will always operate at 560 GB/s. Above 10 GB utilisation, the memory interface must start switching or splitting the access to the memory portions. I don't know if it's technically possible to actually access two different interleaved portions of memory simultaneously by using the two 16-bit channels of the GDDR6 chip but if it were (and the standard appears to allow for it), you'd end up with the
If Microsoft were able to simultaneously access and decouple individual chips from the interleaved portions of memory through their memory controller then you could theoretically push the access to an asymmetric balance, being able to switch between a pure 560 GB/s for 10 GB RAM and a mixed 224 GB/s from 4 GB of that same portion and the full 336 GB/s of the 6 GB portion (also pictured above). This seems unlikely to my understanding of how things work and undesirable from a technical standpoint in terms of game memory access and also architecture design.
In comparison, the PS5 has a static 448 GB/s bandwidth for the entire 16 GB of GDDR6 (also operating at 14 GHz, across a 256-bit interface). Yes, the SX has 2.5 GB reserved for system functions and we don't know how much the PS5 reserves for that similar functionality but it doesn't matter - the Xbox SX either has only 7.5 GB of interleaved memory operating at 560 GB/s for game utilisation before it has to start "lowering" the effective bandwidth of the memory below that of the PS5... or the SX has an averaged mixed memory bandwidth that is always below that of the baseline PS4. Either option puts the SX at a disadvantage to the PS5 for more memory intensive games and the latter puts it at a disadvantage all of the time.
| The Xbox's custom SSD hasn't been entirely clarified yet but the majority of devices on the market for PCIe 4.0 operate on an 8 channel interface... |
I/O and Storage
Moving onto the I/O and SSD access, we're faced with a similar scenario - though Microsoft have done nothing sub-optimal here, they just have a slower interface.
14 GHz GDDR6 RAM operates at around 1.75 GB/s per pin, per chip (14 Gbps [32 data pins per chip x 10 chips gives total potential bandwidth of 560 GB/s - matching the 320-bit interface]). Originally, I was concerned that would be too close to the total bandwidth of the SSD but Microsoft have upgraded to a 2.4/4.8 GB/s read interface with their SSD which is, in theory, enough to utilise the equivalent of 1.7% of 5 GDDR6 chips uploading the decompressed data in parallel each second, leaving a lot of overhead for further operations on those chips and the remaining 6 chips free for completely separate operations. (4.8 GB/5 (1 GB) chips /1.75x32 GB/s)
In comparison, SONY can utilise the equivalent of 3.2% of the bandwidth of 6 GDDR6 chips, in parallel, per second (9 GB/5 (2 GB) chips /(1.75x32 GB/s)) due to the combination of a unified interleaved address space and unified larger RAM capacity (i.e. all the chips are 2 GB in capacity so, unlike the SX, the interface does not need to use more chips [or portion of their total bandwidth] to store the same amount of data).
Turning this around to the unified pool of memory, the SX can utilise 0.86% of the total pin bandwidth whereas the PS5 can use 2.01% of the total pin bandwidth, all of this puts the SX at just under half the theoretical performance (ratio of 0.42) of the PS5 for moving things from the system storage.
Unfortunately, we don't know the random read IOPS for either console as this number will more accurately reflect the real world performance of the drives but going on the above figures this means is that the SX can fill the RAM with raw data (2.4 GB/s) in 6.67 seconds whereas the PS5 can fill the RAM (5.5 GB/s) in 2.9 seconds, again, 2.3x the rate of the SX (this is just literally the inverse ratio of the above comparison with the decompressed data).
However, that's not the entire story. We also have to look at the custom I/O solutions and other technology that both console makers have placed on-die in order to overcome many potential bottlenecks and limitations:
The decompression capabilities and I/O management of both consoles are very impressive, but again, SONY edges out Microsoft with the equivalent of 10-11 Zen 2 CPU cores to 5 cores in pure decompression power. This optimisation on SONY's part really lifts all of the pressure off of the CPU, allowing it to be almost entirely focussed on the game programme and OS functions. That means that the PS5 can move up to 5.5 GB/s compressed data from the SSD and the decompression chip can decompress up to 22 GB/s from that 5.5 GB compressed data, depending on the compressibility of that underlying raw data (with 9 GB as a lower bound figure).
| Data fill rates for the entire memory configuration of each console; the PS5 unsurprisingly outperforms the SX... *I used the "bonus" 20% figure for the SX's BCPack compression algorithm. |
Meanwhile, the SX can move up to 4.8 GB/s of compressed data from the SSD and the decompression chip can decompress up to 6 GB/s of compressed data. However, Microsoft also have a specific decompression algorithm for texture data* called BCPack (an evolution of BCn formats) which can potentially add another 20% compression on top of that achieved by the PS5's Kraken algorithm (which this engineer estimates at a 20-30% compression factor). However, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison because this in on uncompressed data, whereas the PS5 should be using a form of RDO which the same specialist reckons will bridge the gap in compression of texture data when combined with Kraken. So, in the name of fairness and lack of information, I'm going to leave only the confirmed stats from the hardware manufacturers and not speculate about further potential compression advantages.
While the SFS won't help with data loading from the SSD, it will help with data management within the RAM, potentially allowing for less frequent re-loading of data into RAM - which will improve the efficiency of the system, overall - something which is impossible to even measure at this point in time - especially because the PS5 will also have systems in place to manage data more intelligently.**
Last edited:
- Status