I mean I understand that. However in the video they mention that 36TF is going to be rare, so I was still going with 33TF for most use cases. I guess I was asking is it really 33/36TF and the answer is no, it's 18.
If the PS5 is Goku Ultra Instinct you are getting a Yamtcha upgrade on top of it
Sony is obviously relying on PSSR to not require the GPU to run at that max speed, hell not even the original PS5 Max speed cus PSSSR seems to be efficient enough to not heat up the console. Liek you know, there is an uktra boost mode and I doubt unpatched games will make use of the full CU count of the Pro so that nex max GPU boost could work in such games and you know maybe in the future some intense games will still require the PS5 GPU to run at that speed alongside PSSR in stressing situations.
We talked about this in other threads.
The games doing that most likely are maxed, the devs are using those resolutions to make sure the CPU peaks there at all.
Are you magically gonna help those devs figure out how to make their engine get more frames cause the industry could really use talent in this area or OS subsystems to make more of current cpus. Numbers aren't really the problem and we can't keep increasing cpus to keep up with the amazing gains gpus have had since PS4. We could have 6gh ryzen in front of us won't fix what makes crysis and other games suck.
Last edited:
yeah, I don't have a PS5, waiting for the pro model before jumping in. Replaying RDR2 on PC right now and I know I'll want to hop into RDR1 after.
If a game supports Mesh Shaders and VRS, will it benefit the PS5 Pro, XSX, and XSS, right?
How many games currently support these technologies?
How many games currently support these technologies?
Similar to the base PS5, it seems like the new numbers are the max theoretical for clocks and tf. In the previous dev document, those numbers could be Sony presenting the realistic performance numbers since GPUs are not running theoretical max normally.
Plenty of games use Mesh Shaders, and software and hardware VRS already.
Raw specs aside, I hope the console can do something like AMD's AFMF globally to make 60 FPS games feel even smoother, since not every dev is going to go back and individually update games for the Pro and it would be a shame to largely see the hardware upgrade go to waste. With thousands of games on the console, what's a realistic percentage of games that will get updated to make use of the extra power?
While it is hard to pin point any percentage, not needing to update the SDK to add PSSR is a big one for ease of implementation. Also the Ultra Boost feature will help games with 60fps and/or dynamic res, so almost all of them.
That comment is exactly why I hate the metric. People think, no dig at anyone, you can just view it like "2 times the performance!".
I don't know. I feel like the PS5 Pro will sell better than the PS4 Pro. Not because it's a much better product - GTA6 will move consoles like no other game before.
Only anecdotal, but a lot of my colleagues in different companies are waiting for GTA6 to buy a console. And they are mostly casuals.
And the PS5 is not bottle necked by development costs right now. Afaik, Sony have not suddenly cut development budgets. That's a long term issue, but not for this gen though.
The biggest bottleneck is simply development time right now. A AAA game with the quality of a Sony 1st party game takes around 5+ years in this gen...if it's not a new IP, which takes even longer.
Also not sure what "problem" the PS4 Pro solved. At least, I don't remember any major issue that gamers complained about and got resolved with a mid-gen upgrade.
It's oddly a repeat of the original PS5 leak cycle. Surprise semi-last minute overclock that makes it slightly more powerful than we expected.
The emphasis is on raytracing, and the PS5 is absolutely terrible in that regard. IMO RT provides a much bigger visual difference than just resolution like we saw with the PS4 Pro. The PS5 is great at traditional raster and screen-space stuff, but that's not where the future of visuals lie, and those effects create distracting visual issues in games that are otherwise very detailed. The Pro represents a middle point between the PS5 and the PS6 with regard to raytracing, with the PS6 presumably having a heavy emphasis on path tracing. The sooner we ditch screenspace, the better.
In reality it is smaller jump over PS5 (about 45% more) than PS4 Pro was over base PS4 (2.3x) in terms of raster performance.
Exactly. I kept saying this all the time cus I was expecting this. Clock regression is the most absurd thing that any hardware constructor can pull. This will cause all issues let alone talk about ultra boost mode.
I think we have had the specs for most consoles leaked in this fashion this far in advance.
But where us the devkit leak that 99% of people were convinced the console would look like? XD
Hahaha.
Funnily enough it's the same case. Be a laugh if they released it looking like that.
Third party devs need to have this thing about a year out, once that happens it will likely leak. Post-GDC is another one, where info and hardware needs to get out to the wider dev community.
No, it's 33/36.
RDNA 3 uses a double-issue instruction system for its shaders, or something like that (I'd have to go back and look at the actual white paper to fully remember), but it basically means shader performance is theoretically double compared to RDNA 2.
It's kind of like how Nvidia swapped from 64 FP32 + 64 INT32 on Turing, to 64 FP32 + 64 Hybrid FP32/INT 32 on Ampere, where theoretically in clock cycles with no INT required, Ampere has 128 FP32 cores versus 64 in Turing.
Now, in the real world, that's not really going to be what happens. The 3080 technically has 2x the cores of a 2080 Ti at similar clocks, but only 30-35% better real-world performance.
RDNA 2 to RDNA 3 is kind of similar, the 7800 XT with 60 CU's often performs within the general vicinity of the 6800 XT with 72 CU's, so the double-issue system is doing SOMETHING, but it's just not actually a 2x gain.
Unreal Engine 5 in general disagrees. Immortals of Aveum, Remnant II, The Talos Principle 2, Lords of the Fallen, the Matrix demo, all run in the 720p to 1080p range.
The only main UE5 exception is Tekken 8 which runs at 1440p, but it also makes use of none of the special UE5 features.
If this costs more than $599 I'm not getting it. Not gonna invest that much in a 2 year console before it's shelved away for the real sequel.
Didn't this PS4 Pro last longer than 2 years?
And AFAIK some PS4 games got PS4 Pro support after this gen stated.
The moment you see how current consoles struggle to play true gen looking games like HB2, Hydra, Tomb Raider Witcher and others you will be the first to rush buying the console that will cost just the price of a game as extra one time investment.
AFAIK all cross gen titles that are still being released even by now still receive PS4 Pro support.
Tflops count, dynamic clocks, mesh shaders and VRS are going to be meaningless when PSSR and new RT features will be used. Those new features (supposedly RDNA4+ stuff), when used, are going to be real point of that machine. Did the true RDNA2 features or higher static clocks help Xbox series consoles to produce significantly better graphics / more performant games than PS5?
Besides games already support mesh shaders on PS5, according to some developers, and the last multiplaform game famously using VRS (software and hardware) had to turn it off because gamers complained it made image significantly worse for no performance gains.
Besides games already support mesh shaders on PS5, according to some developers, and the last multiplaform game famously using VRS (software and hardware) had to turn it off because gamers complained it made image significantly worse for no performance gains.
I'd say we had a lot more as literal document dump happened.
This time around noone dared post actual docs - and what we do get is heavily filtered through human telephone, making it kind of painful to discern what's actually in there.