I can determine that it is GPU limited on PS5 because when DRS enables and the Bug is not present that keeps it at native 4K, then the cutscene runs every section dramatically better. If it were not GPU limited but CPU limited, then turning DRS on in that cutscene on PS5 without the Bug would not rqise performance universally. You are looking for a "gotchya" here that does not exist.
Maxwell is almost 3 years newer than the graphics architecture in the consoles. There arent any features it lacks compared to PS4/Xbone. It's also not down to lower settings as in most of the games tested there, the settings used produce a much lower quality image than on consoles.
Except he lowers settings enough to stay in vram budget and performance is still far behind a PS4.
Again, settings are not normalized there. And 2GB GPU would be severely VRAM limited at such settings.
As I said above thats why he tests at settings well below the consoles.
We are not looking at par then though - and just because texture settings can be degraded, does not mean they can be degraded enough to fit comfortably without problems into 2 GB of VRAM. It really needs to be a 3-4 GB GPU for such testing to be valid in my eyes. There are those GPUs that exist - we own a few of them.
The statistics and frametimes in his videos show no evidence that performance would improve by a meaningful degree to come close to matching a PS4 with more vram.
Indeed and both companies made a very good job. I remember when PS4 and Xbox One released. Those were much worse in comparison, especially the Xbox Ones. But this gen both companies focused on gaming and AMD, thanks to the hardware God, has a capable CPU ready. Jaguars were shit in 2013 and beyond. The future of these consoles is very bright and I look forward to years ahead.
I think some of those users are overreacting, however I am still very impressed by the PS5 result. Context is important and that's similar to the switch with it's mobile form factor really. Sure, the settings switch games use aren't impressive in itself, but considering the form factor, then these "impossible" ports are really stunning.
Since the 7850 equivalent newer cards are DX12 and compatible with these newer games without hacks and exist in 4GB variants, why not do a comparison with them? For example, the R7 370 has a 4GB version and fully supports DX12, while being just a tiny bit faster than a 7850. Here's how it fares in modern games:
AMD Radeon R7 370 Specs
AMD Trinidad, 975 MHz, 1024 Cores, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 2048 MB GDDR5, 1400 MHz, 256 bitwww.techpowerup.com
It isnt my channel. Just one I have seen before. This is the only video I could find of the 4gb version on HZD. Still a disaster.
And from watching a couple of videos I can tell that this card runs these games better than a PS4. But PS4 runs them at higher settings. So what's the point of such comparisons?
Nope... this shows that the $400 PS5 is the best value in the "gaming" period.
In games that are heavier in RT effects, for instance Watch Dogs Legion, the new consoles were performing to the same level of a 2060 Super IIRC. There was another Digital Foundry video about that.
There is also energy wasted to praise the consoles (in this case PS5) a bit to much imo. It goes both ways.
It absolutely does and I am a console guy myself. But some in here forgot that PC did run with higher settings in the comparisons. That's why I said some are praising the consoles a bit to much, because the consoles aren't comparable to a 3070 imo and they don't need to be. There are other examples with the PS4 vs PC discussion that praise consoles a bit to much, too.
Erm sorry I meant Kepler. Which is the 700 series, i.e. the one they use in that comparison.
No, we went from PS5 being comparable to a GTX 1060 to a 3070...the truth is in the middle
Uhm, not necessarily. GP has some great third party games, too. GPU even includes eaplay and there are rumors for Ubi games being added. I think what determines the value is completely subjective and depends on so many factors that it's impossible to say X is the best value. But that complete discussion is offtopic anyway.
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
No i disagree, the value will always be in the disk version, you spend 100$ more but you can find a lot of better deals on games, and you can always resell them or trade in for other games. Digital sales are getting better but will never be as cheap as the physical game market. There is a reason if Sony cut the price by 100$ just for a disk reader, they know that if you buy the digital version in the end you will spend and give them way more money for games which will cost you more and you won't be able to resell
