It's going to be all cross-gen games, anyway. Neither console should have any issues running current-gen games at 4K60.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
wccftech.com: Why The PS5’s 10.3 TFLOPs Figure Is Misleading
- Thread starter Garrison
- Start date
- Status
You do realize MS upped the CPU and GPU clocks a bit 'last minute' before Xbox One launch right?
They certainly have thermal headroom. MS is using an expensive cooling system too.
They raised the Xbox One's frequency a few months before launch, which had a standard heat sink.
Right so now we are at the point where Xbox is being open about their base clocks and power levels and Sony is projecting boost speeds and an ssd but people are saying that now it's all about SSDs baby! Who cares about tflops/power/bc bah! All I want is those transfer rates daddy cerny!
you could see how some people are a little miffed at that pivot especially when they were browbeat about power for 4 years before the one x, evenPS4 execs were saying power makes you a better gamer so don't come in with a holier than thou attitude to console wars now that the pendulum is swinging the other way
We have no idea if they have thermal headroom, no one but MS knows. I'd be shocked if they upped their clocks at this point, they have the higher numbers and all raising the clocks will do is reduce chip yields and increase fan noise on the console.
I wish the X had variable clocks as well just because every game should be using dynamic resolution anyway that would scale with the clocks and means we could push even a little further at times. In games with fixed resolutions it would be terrible but I hope we never see fixed resolutions again.
The largest issue that's easiest to see is how well the box currently handles thermals with the current clocks and does say bumping the GPU to 2GHz and the CPU to 4.0 GHz/3.8 GHz affect the console's ability to handle the additional heat.
Having variable clocks means devs need to develop around where they want the system sending power (CPU vs GPU) and trying to maximize that.
Having a locked, sustained clock, devs have access to the highest raw output the box has without having to juggle the power shared between the CPU and GPU.
The question that will come up is where are devs deciding to cut back on CPU power on the PS5 to push more image quality or where are we seeing the image quality drop because power is being pulled away from the GPU and sent to the CPU to handle more load there.
User warned: modwhining
Are they even trying to rein it in? GAF had its problems, particularly the shithead who owned it, but FUD like the article in the OP was shut down pretty quickly. It's embarrassing this thread has lasted over 9 hours and 11 pages on Era.
They did, but only by a very small amount. The GPU clock was increased only 6% for example. In comparison the PS5's GPU clock is 22% faster than the XSX's. So whilst they may be able to change it late in the game, I'm not sure by how much they could.
Side note, I'm definitely curious to see PS5's cooling system. Cerny straight up acknowledged they've not always been good with those things, and then also stated he thinks people will be really pleased with what their engineers have come up with this time, which coupled with the super high clocks, makes me even more interested to see what they have designed. I just hope it isn't too massive lol.
And even if it's about third party concerns, they would develop for the lowest specs as many here say, which could be the regular xbone gen for a year or two. Now are people saying third parties will base their games on the lowest common denominator or the higher specs? PS5 got like double IO and Xbox got 15% in whatever TF is gonna do. I'd want a poll to what people think.
If it bothers you so much, I would recommend putting these people on the ignore list.
MS has had the TF lead for the last 2+ years and no one was doing this, why? Because the TF difference was significant just like it was in favor of the PS4 at launch. A ~16% gap, however, is not only considerably less significant, it will be even less impactful due to diminishing returns. So why exactly should we pretend the difference in teraflops holds the same weight when the math (and common sense) says it should not?
It looks like a lot of people are really wanting this to be a reverse of 2013 even when it shares no resemblance just so they can have their revenge for how their favorite console was treated
Probably to cover their asses lol. At the end of the day, there's going to be those rare times when it isn't a 10.28 Tflop GPU, and might be 10.1 Tflops or whatever instead. However brief, that'd still be misadvertising if they didn't mention it, so this way they're at least covered and being honest with consumers.
Both Microsoft and Sony have been pretty careful with verbiage lately so as to limit their legal liability, evident even with this whole BC stuff. They're using terms like Almost all. Majority of etc. They're not taking chances.
The crazy thing about all this is no one is saying that the SX is inferior. Yes its the superior console in most areas. MS has done a great job marketing it and showing it off.
However, the hyperbole and downplay of the PS5 specs has been exhausting asf since Tuesday. You have devs, DF and NXGamer all praising the console for being smartly designed yet all it takes is one article from people who aren't devs to convince some of you Mark Cerny has lied or is being purposely vague.
I'd take the opinion of devs over this article any day. The sooner this forum can accept that next gen will be incredible either way on both consoles the better.
However, the hyperbole and downplay of the PS5 specs has been exhausting asf since Tuesday. You have devs, DF and NXGamer all praising the console for being smartly designed yet all it takes is one article from people who aren't devs to convince some of you Mark Cerny has lied or is being purposely vague.
I'd take the opinion of devs over this article any day. The sooner this forum can accept that next gen will be incredible either way on both consoles the better.
I was under the impression the variable clocks were more like turbo on Intel CPU's, is it not that?
Since the Xbox series X has far more CUs than the PS5, they get a lot more bang for the buck for a small frequency increase.
No, Cerny was very specific to point out their variable frequencies work nothing like how they do on PCs and smartphones (where frequencies drop when things gets too hot). He was very clear to say that wouldn't work because then you'd run into situations where a game might perform worse just because someone was playing in a hot room.
Exactly.
A bit like saying you come in first place in a sprint MOST of the time for most of the sprint but it can vary...
is this the new, slightly subtler version of "fanbois sucking ____'s dick?"
let's not.
Why would you ignore the CU count? It's not like it's insignificant by any stretch.
For every game that can run it. If they can run it, they obviously targeted it, because otherwise it wouldn't be able to run it at all.
He's splitting hairs. As power increases, so does the temperature. So if they lower a frequency to stay within a power envelope, they're also lowering frequency as temperatures increase.
Modern CPUs and GPUs have thermal sensing diodes all over them. Hundreds in some cases. They won't be ignored. You can bet that they are all being monitored. It's just that they feel their cooling system has enough headroom to run without the extra heat affecting their programmed frequency curves for a given power load. But I'm certain you could abuse the chip enough with a hot environment to trigger a panic signal to slow it down. They'd be stupid not to.
MS made it a pont that the XSX will run quiet. Why would they up the clocks now and risk higher fan noise when they already beaten Sony in the numbers game? MS should be feeling happy where the XSX is on a technical level against the PS5. They already won the PR war in terms of which console is the most powerful, given the reactions since Wednesday..
The only way of knowing how a GPU performs is by actually running games on it. This has always been the case.
On the case of Xsx small upclock. I don't think it's happening.
It happened for Xb1 for a few reasons. As I recall, Albert Penello said it involved some luck.
A. They were extremely conservative with thermals after RROD, so they made the cooling more robust than needed.
B. They desperately needed to close the gap as much as they can against PS4.
C. The esram was on chip and benefited too from an overclock, so the bandwidth of the entire system, especially graphics intensive, was also increased.
The 12.155TF figure is probably already the max that 560GB/s can comfortably support. Any upclock would be useless. They've already won the PR flop battle
Conversely I think PS5's GPU at 2.23ghz is very bandwidth starved, especially on the render backend. Moving to 14gbps chips from 16gbps chips shown in the Github tests was a big sacrifice for price.
It happened for Xb1 for a few reasons. As I recall, Albert Penello said it involved some luck.
A. They were extremely conservative with thermals after RROD, so they made the cooling more robust than needed.
B. They desperately needed to close the gap as much as they can against PS4.
C. The esram was on chip and benefited too from an overclock, so the bandwidth of the entire system, especially graphics intensive, was also increased.
The 12.155TF figure is probably already the max that 560GB/s can comfortably support. Any upclock would be useless. They've already won the PR flop battle
Conversely I think PS5's GPU at 2.23ghz is very bandwidth starved, especially on the render backend. Moving to 14gbps chips from 16gbps chips shown in the Github tests was a big sacrifice for price.
It seems that it is the hot take season. Things from the truth about variable clock to the SSD being a gimmick are all over my feed.
Look, I have my doubts as anyone should, but I am equally excited to see new things being tried out. I will reserve my judgement until we see the systems in action. Otherwise, people are using their prior experiences with PC to jump to conclusions about this or that. I don't think that would give a clear picture since the design philosophies are different with the PS5.
I just wish Sony had followed up the technical presentation with a video teardown of the console for us normal people. I was quite excited when Cerny mentioned that we will be thrilled to see the cooling solution when the engineers reveals it in their teardown and thought we will get to see that directly after. I wonder if they haven't yet finalized the design of the console or if they just want to spread out their announcements.
Look, I have my doubts as anyone should, but I am equally excited to see new things being tried out. I will reserve my judgement until we see the systems in action. Otherwise, people are using their prior experiences with PC to jump to conclusions about this or that. I don't think that would give a clear picture since the design philosophies are different with the PS5.
I just wish Sony had followed up the technical presentation with a video teardown of the console for us normal people. I was quite excited when Cerny mentioned that we will be thrilled to see the cooling solution when the engineers reveals it in their teardown and thought we will get to see that directly after. I wonder if they haven't yet finalized the design of the console or if they just want to spread out their announcements.
I think this is conjecture until we see how 3rd party games are running on both. PS5's GPU cache scrubbers and coherency engines, combined with the custom I/O and any potential RDNA2 architecture improvements may paint a different picture.
Because fanboys? So you get "concern" about aspects of the consoles from people who don't really care outside of being able to shout that their plastic box is better in some way. To the point where you'd think the PS5 doesn't even have a GPU and the XSX doesn't have an SSD. It's stupid and tiring but unfortunately expected.
Here's a transcript of what Cerny said:
"The simplest approach would be to look at the actual temperature of the silicone die and throttle the frequency on that basis, but that won't work. It fails to create a consistent Playstation 5 experience. It wouldn't do to run a console slower simply because it was in a hot room. So rather than look at the actual temperature of the silicone die, we look at the activities that the GPU and CPU are performing and set the frequencies on that basis, which makes everything deterministic and repeatable."
My post was in response to whether Microsoft could increase their clock frequency late in the design stages as they've done in the past, to try and get closer to the PS5's clockspeed. Hence CU's was never mentioned.
I know the theory. I understand what they are doing. And that's the only solution they could arrive at to get a semi-predictable system. I even have an inkling of how they do it using existing systems, based on my experience. I also stand by what I said that they are monitoring temperatures for unexpected situations. :-)
Ah yes, WWCFTech, the bullshit rumour site speaking as if they have any semblance of reality.
Titles runnings at 60fps aren't pushing things to run at a sustained 16.67ms every frame. They're usually at running at around 10-15% lower so that any jumps are still with the frame budget for when spikes do occur.
The problem with the PS5 specs is that it's not clear if the given CPU and GPU clocks are a joint sustained reality or if either have to cut back when the other has hit maximum clocks for a while.
It's been said before, but Sony's speech was lacking on detail so we have to wait for real world performance comparisons on cross-platform titles before we can form any conclusion on the general performance delta between platforms.
Titles runnings at 60fps aren't pushing things to run at a sustained 16.67ms every frame. They're usually at running at around 10-15% lower so that any jumps are still with the frame budget for when spikes do occur.
The problem with the PS5 specs is that it's not clear if the given CPU and GPU clocks are a joint sustained reality or if either have to cut back when the other has hit maximum clocks for a while.
It's been said before, but Sony's speech was lacking on detail so we have to wait for real world performance comparisons on cross-platform titles before we can form any conclusion on the general performance delta between platforms.
There's very little reason for them to attempt getting close to the PS5's clock speed with as many CUs as they have. But a small clock increase? I suspect they have that headroom.
LoL that's true.
Can you imagine if the the PS5 were the most powerful machine and all XSX had was a faster SSD?
But Sony deserves that midshare since they've done only awesome consoles throughout the generations.
There's a war to be won. LOL I think people underestimate the overall power upgrade both of these consoles will have compared to last gen. Both of these consoles should be awesome.
When you mess with my new best friend GB/s, there's bound to be problems here.
6 months? Aren't we optimistic.
I feel like we're gonna get this BS argument for the entire gen even if PS5 games end up being amazing, or on par with SX exclusives. It'll never end, which is pretty sad.
The parts of a GPU that consume the most power is the shader array. Very few games are actually shader-bound, and actually, counter-intuitively, densely packed scenes with lots of sub-pixel sized polygons actually saturate the shader array less than scenes with much larger geometry and a lots less stuff going on; so in those cases a slight downclock will have minimal impact on GPU performance overall.
- Status