I mean you can try to spin it all you want, but all Sony can do is spin it as being better and hope it sticks because right now it's a really bad look.
Yeah I don't want to be too negative but it really seems as if they pushed the boost to the absolute max to make this look better. This thing is probably gonna get super loud if it tries to maintain that most of the time...
SX average speed per gig is 476 vs 448 for PS5, a 6% advantage which is pretty small.
Seems like almost every thing is weaker on PS5 except the SSD speed, and the 10.2 TF is really 9.2 with variable boosts.
Wait, really? I didn't watch all of it. Missed a lot of the SSD stuff tbh.
Yup! They both have custom solutions to help alleviate bottlenecks. We need to find out more about Direct storage because it could closing the margin towards the theoretical speeds the PS5 SSD has. So ready!!
Did you watch the carney review? The whole hardware chain supports 5.5 and has a cursor prioritization layer SSD, meaning those faster SSDs need to support 7GB/s to be compatible. It's unlikely MS went with a more expensive hardware chain (decompresser, etc.) than they needed to that could support much more than what has been advertised.
truth
Sony should sell this at 449 imo
Are we sure it doesn't have that? Just because they didn't talk about it here doesn't mean that, unless I missed verification of it being absent.
It's obvious Sony wants the lower price, they know that is what is going to drive more sales, it makes sense as they aren't as obsessed with power like Phil is. Now if Microsoft matches the price, then wheeeewwwwww.
Both of these consoles will be so blazingly fast, the difference in multiplat titles will be for one, unnoticable. What I gather from it, XBX is brute power, and PS5 does things in a far more intelligent fashion. both will have no problem driving incredible graphics to your TV's.
yean, you cannot average the XSX GPU memory bw like this. The GPU data will reside on the optimal pool, while the slower pool is intented to be used for mostly CPU related stuff.
Everything that requires loading assets from the SSD, so a lot of things. This is specially important for games that rely on asset streaming (like open world games), but it also means only essential stuff needs to stay in the RAM, because if the game ever needs to load something new, it can be done incredibly fast. This results in being able to put more stuff in the game because the rotation of assets inside the RAM isn't as much of a bottleneck anymore. The example that Cerny gave of being able to unload assets that are out of the players sight because you can quickly load them again once the player turns around is pretty telling that this is the future they envisioned.
I doubt they will be identical in practice much of the time, so I'd like to see which one tends to take the objective edge in multiplatform. I'll have both systems and want to know.
I think the github leak the past December was quite on the ball, Sony listed peak performance:
www.resetera.com
Actually it's more than 20% in GPU power. Also about that 100% more SSD bandwidth will most likely result in difference of fraction of seconds, so not actually appreciable.
