Yep and although it's slightly offtopic, I do wonder as someone who is not a game developer, what devs think about the CPU versus PS5 CPU. Obviously you got a slightly higher clock speed on PS5 (SMT enabled), but the PS5 OS needs more resources, thus devs get 6.5 cores for games instead of 7 cores on Series. DF mentioned how many cores these consoles have for games in the last podcast or so. If anyone wonders what my source is.
I mean I know a fair number of people that didn't bother with any model of the XB1, but the Series S made a strong enough case to atleast make sure they weren't missing out on Game Pass.
Unless a game is supremely cpu bound across xs and ps5 the series s "version" should be basically the 60 fps performance mode on series x at the least
They are all very close to each other, it's pretty much a wash.
Yes, absolutely. Would you say the CPU is the most important aspect for a game? In that CPU is the least scalable of them all?
Yeahā¦.exactly. My point is if you can get something working well on Series S then you're more likely to be able to pull off a 60fps mode on the bigger consoles. They've already done the work to optimise it for a less powerful machine, so it's easier to create those performance modes.
Isn't the logic of the machine that if you have a 4K TV, then you buy the "4k" machine?
I couldn't remember who it was all I remember is that some devs piled on him for "over reacting" and speaking some nonsense about "scalability" of games these days and poof all of his tweets about his qualms with the hardware gone.
That was the Director of Engine Technology @ id Software. He deleted the tweet when Bethesda got acquired.
Yep that's the one this simply stuck to my mind because it seemed like he got a preview of the hardware specs and he didn't like what they saw so as soon as the system was officially revealed (after being leaked of course) he was finally able to voice his opinion.That was the Director of Engine Technology @ id Software. He deleted the tweet when Bethesda got acquired.
It's in the article that OP posted, here's a copy of the tweet in question:
Zero chance of that happening. Series S was made, because cost reduction this generation will be much harder to do for Sony and Microsoft.
They'll do it again imo, because cost reduction opportunity get worse with every generation and this generation run into the following issue:
www.eurogamer.net
How can the "split memory banks with drastically slower speeds" be an issue for games, when the 2GB of slower RAM are exclusively used by the OS? I am not saying he is totally wrong with his assessment of the memory situation as a whole, since obviously he knows much more than I do. But that part doesn't make any sense to me.That was the Director of Engine Technology @ id Software. He deleted the tweet when Bethesda got acquired.
It's in the article that OP posted, here's a copy of the tweet in question:
No they didn't. They said it was a machine capable of 1440p (which it technically is as some games do). It was always a 1080p machine.
I doubt that. Hell, we have devs in this very thread that have said porting to the Series S was a few lines of code.
And? "Designed to play games at 1440p and 60fps" is no different than the XSX/PS5 were designed to play games at 4k 60fps/120fps. They are all capable of it but most games don't get there.
I mean, it can do native 4K too.
www.engadget.com
www.reddit.com
Just like PS3 and 360 were 1080p consoles. Xbox One was a 1080p console and PS4 Pro a 4K consoles. List could go on... Point is Sony and Microsoft have a history of doing that. So I am actually surprised some user's are seemingly surprised or confused about this.
So consoles shouldn't exist then. Because so long as they do they will eventually hold gaming back. Or rather non upgradeable hardware shouldn't exist? That's basically what you said, but I don't disagree. I don't think consoles should be the baseline as these last 2 gens they haven't been bleeding edge.
Era really doesn't like the Series S, lol. Ever since we learned about the Xbox "Lockhart", way before we knew the specs.
Meanwhile DooM on Switch.That was the Director of Engine Technology @ id Software. He deleted the tweet when Bethesda got acquired.
It's in the article that OP posted, here's a copy of the tweet in question:
Only if a developer aggressively programmed themselves into a corner, despite the already present knowledge of the minimum spec. At 5.5GB less than the X, I'd frankly see this as someone building a room with no doorways while they're inside it.
I think we're going to see some games eventually where the level of cutbacks needed make it just a pretty crummy version of a game (especially when we get to the point in the gen when the X and PS5 are going to be struggling).
Ooop, yes, I misread my own numbers. Thanks for the catch.
