Yeah, it's a wait and see thing. A lot of the issues with X1X stuff is devs prioritizing resolution over everything. Hopefully that is less of an issue going forward.
-
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.
PlayStation 5 Specs Revealed by EuroGamer (See Threadmarks)
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
Yeah, it's a wait and see thing. A lot of the issues with X1X stuff is devs prioritizing resolution over everything. Hopefully that is less of an issue going forward.
. The real leap of the SSD is as compared to the previous generation of HDDs. A 2.4GB/s SSD will pull off 99% of the tricks you'd do with a 5GB/s SSD.
You'll be able to make detailed, rich open worlds with tremendous asset streaming on both solutions. Loading times will be minimal, and the difference between both solutions will be relatively insignificant.
The OS should run smoothly on both, and boot up should also be fast on both consoles.
You're joking, right?
Have we seen any of these high frequency speeds in action yet? All we have are words.
Well, realistically speaking, the PS5 may have the most impressive looking games because it will have exclusives developed for it from the ground up that use every bit of its power. On the flipside, if Microsoft does have another console to unveil -- Series S or whatever -- then all of their games will have to at least target that spec in the future unless they choose to make Series X exclusive games. Everyone else will make stuff that has to run on PCs that aren't guaranteed to have NVMe SSDs, so that will potentially hold things back from third parties, as well.
I'm happy with the presentation, overall they landed exactly where I thought they would.
Now I'm thinking that Sony is going into this generation with a different strategy. Design the absolute best possible spec for $399 and release a mid-cycle refresh PS5 Pro where as Microsoft may be going in with best possible spec compared to PS5 and price would be decided later, Lockhart and mid-cycle refresh TBD.
Now I'm thinking that Sony is going into this generation with a different strategy. Design the absolute best possible spec for $399 and release a mid-cycle refresh PS5 Pro where as Microsoft may be going in with best possible spec compared to PS5 and price would be decided later, Lockhart and mid-cycle refresh TBD.
I thought that's what they were. Xbox is marketed as 12tf and the stream just said 10.3tf. if I rounded up then so did cerny
Depends on how much is used for I/O by the CPU too. MS developed a new system for it to cut down on CPU use.
Also, that PS5 SSD may slow down based on Temps
No it can't. Stop lying.
I am fairly certain we won't Even see difference of Pro and X
The perfect reaction and just my face when reading many of the "concern" posts in here. Usually, I can crack a smile, but it's just bad now.
Specs of the PS5 that were hacked and revealed ages ago.
Everyone called them fake, too weak etc but they turned out to be mostly true.
I know the SSD is amazing and all, but in the end of the day, multiplat titles will probably just aim to the Xbox solution. So what? The PS5 loads the game 2 seconds faster, but outputs worse graphical fidelity and resolution? Maybe lower FPS as well? Great! I'm sure people will gonna do loads of stuff with those extra seconds on their lifes while wondering why the new COD, Battlefied or AC runs better on the Xbox.
I know they had different goals and that's what I find baffling, after the PS4 being a straight forward piece of hardware.
Maybe they simply tried to design around the $399 price, and that's fair enough. But if that's your main objective, you should just start the presentation with this: it'll cost $399, so people at least temper their spectations.
Edit: or, in another words:
Nobody knows what the usual boost is. He mentioned that a few percent reduction in clocks yields 10% decrease in power, so it's very elastic. Sony went to very high levels of frequency/TDP so depending on the cooling I'd expect 9.6-9.8 TFLOPs to be an average TFLOP output.
High level it looks like Sony got complacent let's be honest.
The pricing needs to be cheaper than Series X that is 100% for sure.
The pricing needs to be cheaper than Series X that is 100% for sure.
Much smaller. X had other advantages with a 43% more powerful GPU. Here, PS5 has some advantages and the difference in GPU is 17%.
That's not how this works. It's a 43% difference versus a 17% difference. Keep in mind the X had other advantages. This is much smaller.
So you don't want a very powerful system that allows for fundamental improvements to game design? What are you looking for on a new generation of consoles then?
How can you call the XSX brute forced when it's the PS5 that's running the GPU at an obscene frequency.
It seem he design the system around that .
36 CU at 2gh already have crazy fillrate at 2.2 that is crazy amount.
Yeah, it's probably only going to benefit a few (exclusive) games besides load times and pop-in (which should be lessened on either system).
The Xbox reveal had some interesting tidbits (e.g. how it could segment out huge textures to save on memory usage)... not sure of PS5 can do that stuff too...
Dude? Did you even watch the presentation? Games already coming out this year and going into next year are taking advantage of faster storage or even designing their games around asset streaming among other things.
The SSD is super fast, and there are somethings that First party and maybe studios like DICE would use for 3D audio.
6/4.2 = 1.43
1.82/1.3 = 1.42
Meanwhile :
12/9.3 = 1.3
This is the smallest difference ever in console generations, IMHO.
Last edited:
That's impossible. If it's boosting on traditional means that means everyone would get a different experience based on silicon quality, clocks, temps etc. Something Cerny specifically said they were not going to have.
Probably usable space, I assume XSX will be about the same
12 channels. It means they cant do a nice round number like 1TB.
This can't be quoted enough, especially that last sentence.
They went with 12 channels vs 8 channels on most PC SSDs now.
But he didn't talk about the I/O use by the CPU like MS did. Nor about "sustained" performance because ALL SSDs lose performance due to temperature.
With the Turbo clocks talk, I doubt the 5.5 is sustained.
Devs, outside of exclusives, obviously won't start building games on a 5.5GB/s baseline.
However any game that leans in on streaming could benefit in a perceptual way if lower IO speeds result, occasionally or otherwise, in streaming artifacts or stuttering or the like. Those problems will be less pronounced with higher IO speed, where it is the fault of IO speed.
PS5 devs are free to go crazy with it. It may not just be about asset throughput either in that context.
I believe he outlined how basically all the IO work is offloaded to custom logic, not on the CPU.
Because people are trying to twist things to fit the desired narrative in their heads
It's not fake news. You can see more information the specs comparison thread.
John Linneman on Twitter
“The craziest thing about PS5 is the speed of the SSD. 5.5 GB/s is just part of the story - there is a lot of custom silicon in there to ensure that the system isn't bottlenecked in other areas. It's *REALLY* fast on paper - a lot faster than Xbox Series X even.”
twitter.com
Indeed. There's more to these systems than just the GPU.
Cerny just said that dropping clocks with only couple percent, means power consumption drops about 10%.
So no. We are not going to see huge downclocks and that machine is running on those clocks most of the time and that means difference is about 17%.
No. I was working, and I don't have any interest in listening to Cerny talk about hardware stats. I care about raw comparisons - what it's better at and what it's worse at.
A super fast SSD isn't going to do anything for multiplatform games, so the only feature the PS5 has to crow about is something only exclusives will take advantage of. That's a pretty big bummer in my book.
It's 1TB with some space that's reserved for the OS/system itself to use
Part of the formula to calculate teraflops includes compute units (CU), which are themselves clusters of shading units where rasterization work is done.
XSX has 52 compute units, PS5 has 36 compute units.
I'll let you do the math on the difference there, but to say there won't be a difference ... is also lying.
Those would be good specs if they were locked but the whole boost thing sounds terrible to me.
I don't get why Sony chose to focus on a superfast custom SSD. Most games are still going to be built around the Series X SSD so what is the point. Loading times are not in anybody's list of priorities, the performance of an average gaming rig SSD would have been fine.
Overall i'm disappointed the github thing turned out to be real.
I don't get why Sony chose to focus on a superfast custom SSD. Most games are still going to be built around the Series X SSD so what is the point. Loading times are not in anybody's list of priorities, the performance of an average gaming rig SSD would have been fine.
Overall i'm disappointed the github thing turned out to be real.
well, let's put it this way... the XSX GPU/CPU is not twice as fast as the PS5, it's like 15% faster
the PS5 SSD is more than twice as fast as the XSX SSD speed
now if you just think, okay so PS5 loads faster here and there; no that's the wrong takeaway. that's what you get in an open environment like on PC where everyone is running different speeds
in a closed setting, knowing everyone has 5.5 GB/s raw data rate is massive and has game engine and design implications, which cerny pointed out
I have a hard time believing PS5 SSD is gonna change game design as we know. Remember majority of games are multiplatform, they have to run on the XBOX, and most devs aren't going to sacrifice a whole SKU just because PS5 SSD is this gamechanger (if it really is).
Do we have confirmations of ROPs and TMUs for RDNA 2.0 GPUs or the XSX or PS5?
Perhaps I missed that detail.