Whether they personally have more kinship to Sony or not, their approach to their videos are very level headed and objective so I keep watching them.
Digital Foundry: PlayStation 5/ Xbox Series X New GPU Spec Leak Analysis: 9.2TF vs 12TF?
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
lol I'm not going to get into this conversation again. No, the PS4 didn't run unopposed especially the first two holidays. No, I'm not saying these factors didn't contribute to Sony being successful. What I am saying is that people love to throw these things up as if they are literally the only reason the PS4 was successful and completely discounting the hard work put into the PS4 and the insane output of games that helped establish it as the place to play. Done with the discussion, no offense.
LOL Holy shit. The revisionism is ridiculous and no that Polygon article has been disproven for years now. I'm done with this thread.
The post count on this thread and the next gen one obviously beg to differ.
But if PS5 is weaker it really won't matter to some.
TBH I think at this point Microsoft has far surpassed Sony's hardware design and engineering. But there's no doubt that Sony's engineering and design has declined over the years.
Since 2013, I think that's when we saw MS truly invest in hardware and it has paid off.
I alluded to BC potentially holding the PS5 back in the older thread.
People didn't like it lol.
So you are saying they should simply pander to Playstation fans rather than actually have meaningful and informative content?
This attitude explains why John had to take repeated shit from weirdos when he had something good to say about Gears 5
I'm sure people with similar opinions as you will hate watch them to the top of the youtube viewing charts.
Honestly I don't get this. Microsoft released the Xbox One X, Sony went for a smaller jump with Pro, that's not indicative of Sony losing their edge in the engineering department.
They are both ordering an APU from AMD and are ordering it based on a price. If MS has more CUs and it's a lot larger it will be more expensive. If MS doesn't take a loss it will just be passed on to the consumer. Sony is targeting a price point lower than MS and probably a single SKU.
Sure but implementations in the mobo design placement, how the case interacts with thermals etc, all of these things come into play. They don't order simply based on price. They aren't just ordering off the shelf at bulk!
As an example Xbox One S was able to be smaller and run better than the original
Last edited:
On the topic of Sony's BC, couldn't Sony's chip use 54 CUs and disable 1/3 of them for Pro BC and 2/3 of them for PS4 BC? With 54 CUs clocked at 1.8 ghz, you would get 12.44 TF. This all line up with both the previous rumors about PS5 and XBSX being very close, while PS5 being slightly stronger while also be inline the GitHub leaks if they were running BC tests with CUs disabled. Maybe this has already been brought up and it is not possible due to some restriction, I haven't read through all the posts yet.
Agreed . I think it was just different priorities and design objectives for these mid gen machines
PS4 Pro is the definition of bad engineering. How was it possible for MS to have a smaller box, more powerful and yet be quiet, whereas PS4 Pro is loud.
But we will see next Gen if Sony has put more focus into engineering and hardware design. But MS hardware in general are very well engineered and people enjoy their hardware.
So this would be pretty shortsighted if true. Does that mean the PS6 will also be 36CU to preserve PS4 BC? I think the PS4 Pro having double PS4 CU was just a convenience for a mid-gen console upgrad and not something Sony would adhere to for next gen.
$50 pf that is UHD BR Sony didn't want to pay for. So year later, $50 more, a quieter system with 33% more computer power.
Yes I like I say Sony went for a more cheaper route to the problem. But I'm curious if Sony will do the same here, especially since designing a new cooling solution is expensive.
I think this is something that needs to have more investigation in TBH, we simply don't know much about PS5 in general. But if 36CU is for BC reasons, then it really could hamper the PS6 and beyond.
Since Ps4 was already faster than the One by a lot I always thought the Pro was unnecessary that year and should have launched at a higher price and a year later.
PS4 Pro came out a full year earlier than the Xbox One X and cost 100 dollars less.
PS4 Pro has a stronger necessity based adherence to compatibility through hardware (software supporting solutions are an area that Sony is currently investing heavily in and playing catch-up)
Only first run pros were loud and at that it seemed to be an inconsistency from manufacturers, not Sony themselves.
Sony could have likely waited a year, and at the same MSRP target, edged out Microsoft just like last time, though we'll never know. A Pro with an extra 12 months until release and an equivalent MSRP would have been very similar to the X.
Still the pro has some very forward looking features in it such as FP16 (enabled for the new consoles and not supported in the X) and hardware support for checkerboarding. By comparison the X is more 'stock'. It's clear that Sony was well aware of the compromises that they were making at the time.
Last edited:
You're right that it came out a year earlier and is cheaper. That's a good point. Sony should definitely invest in a software solution for BC. But to my knowledge, PS4 games are coded to metal and based on those specific instructions whereas Xbox One games are developed within a hypervisor/container and therefore more abstract.
This is false. All the examples you cite used EDRAM, not ESRAM. And all used EDRAM because it provided way more bandwidth than you could achieve with a standard memory bus. The ratio of EDRAM to main ram was also way more favorable in all those cases. The ESRAM in Xbox One was comparatively smaller making it more difficult to use, and only provided about the same aggregate bandwidth that you could have gotten from GDDR. Had MS used the same EDRAM paradigm it would have been 10 times faster, with 8 times as much capacity.
According to Phil Spencer, Microsoft was selling X1X at a loss. Meanwhile PS4 Pro was profitable from day one. There's a greater gap in overall cost than $50. I wish I had bom for both, but I couldn't find either via a cursory google.
Edit: found this analysis of a Pro tear down by IHS Markit which puts the bom at ~$320
I actually also chalk up the inferior cooling in the Pro to a design oversight. Especially compared to the X. My hope is that Sony learned from that mistake.
It was on a smaller node. A jump from 28nm to 16nm was something like a 40-50% power/efficiency improvement.
These are the base consoles. So far as we know lockheart is still speculation. And if all that you have heard people talk about is those 4 games you might be in a really tight circle there buddy.
But having that reduction also allowed them to bump up the GPU clock and Ram Bandwthd. My point is simply that a lot of engineering and decisions go into these systems that have impacts on performance. It is not simply 'what can we get based on this price budget'. On top of that the hardware components are heavily customized.
I don't know anything about this but I like the idea.
PS5=3*PS4 Pro=12.6TF
XSX=2*XB1X=12TF
Both S and original have the same ram, bus width, and mem bandwidth.
That 16nm chip also cost less than the original. All mid gen refreshes, the mini/slim kind not the pro/x kind, are made because processes mature and become cheaper to manufacture. Sony/MS make them because they lose them less money or make a bigger profit. The small performance bump in xbone S was very much a needed one as well.
Generally speaking of course they do.
Xbox One S has a GPU clock-speed of 914MHz, up from 853MHz in the older unit. That's a 7.1 per cent increase and ESRAM bandwidth increases in line, taking that up to 218GB/s effective. Some games see no difference - others run noticeably faster.
I'm not sure what point you're making. What are you trying to say to me/dispute?
Last edited:
In that case PS5 is going to be very expensive. I think Sony is pretty much trapped, so they need to be in the middle. So $399, so that means no 12TF.
I know this is all unconfirmed rumors, but I'm legitimately curious as to what the console landscape would look like if Sony released a much less powerful console beside a much more powerful Xbox. A lot of casual gamers are only there for the "graphics" yet many are there for the exclusives. What kind of power difference would it take for someone who cared more about exclusives to make the jump?
Pretty sure I asked you this in the other thread, might've been one of your friends. Sony only had to alter the fan curve in the latest revision of the pro in order to be just as quiet as the X and just as hot, without using a VC or any other "exotic" cooling, and that's considered bad engineering by you. What does it say about the engineering of the X?
PRO released with a more aggressive fan curve because sony wanted a cooler system. It ran 7-9* cooler compared to the X while they both topped out at around 175w max power draw.
I'm not really sure. Pointing out that the S was made to fit a price point and reduce cost which was made possible with a die shrink. At the same time MS bumped up power cause they needed to. From the snippet I got of your conversation, that seemed like a fitting reply. Apologies if I missed something.
In hindsight, if I had known you were talking to Danny, I would've stayed out of it.
One vs S specs
AMD Xbox One S GPU Specs
AMD Durango 2, 914 MHz, 768 Cores, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 8192 MB DDR3, 1066 MHz, 256 bit
Everyone's there for the games. And gamers will always go for the best package which is why the console which offers said package will always come out at the top, simple as that.
Those who believe that all you need to end up 1st is delivering the strongest hardware have not been paying attention.
I meant that as an example, I thought it was clear. I mean - people talked about the games they wanted to play. What I can tell you is that no one talked about teraflops. Ever.
It is an interesting question and I don't know. But I can speak for myself, I would choose good exclusives (sequels of the games I love on PS4) over an Xbox that is 2x as powerful any day. I have a much more powerful PC and yet most of my time this generation was spent on PS4 and Switch exclusives. The Sony ones also looked most impressive visually to my eyes.
Of course, I plan on getting both, so I probably won't have to make that choice :)
Most people don't talk/know about the technical specs of anything really. We talk about it because we know about it. Which is why the whole situation I proposed (buddies/friends showing off stuff) will cause talk. Don't think it's been different any other gen really, I remember seeing PSone Games looking better than my Saturn stuff back in the day, same SNES with Genesis. Loved those 2 consoles and they are some of my favorites (Genesis and Saturn) but yeah... People like graphics.
wow this was a long thread!
I guess I should expect such reactions around here but still...lol. I already know I will be on PS5 no matter what the stats because it will have the games I want. But hopefully it plays those games well.
I guess I should expect such reactions around here but still...lol. I already know I will be on PS5 no matter what the stats because it will have the games I want. But hopefully it plays those games well.
If 9 RDNA TF ain't enough to play those games well, then there's something wrong with them games...
What games it will have? And what games will Xbox have? I'm curious to see into your crystal ball.
True, but if people actually believe multiplatform games will look better on X to average people because of these few teraflops, I think they are very much mistaken. In fact, if this generation is any indication - it is production values and developer artistic skills that beat hardware in terms of graphics. When it comes to graphical showcases, I would bet on Santa Monica Studio, Naughty Dog and Guerrilla Games over a few teraflops any day. As for multiplatform titles - they will look mostly the same on both consoles (again, to anyone other than enthusiasts). And I wouldn't be surprised if one of the most graphically impressive games on launch day is.... The Last of Us 2, running on 4 teraflop PS4.
People care about graphics, but graphics is art direction and quality, not pixel and frame counts - especially to regular people. If you want to bet on best graphics at launch, look for the best looking launch titles - not teraflops (and I'm not saying it will be Sony with the prettiest title, just that this tf difference will mean very little, no matter how much some people here wish it).
Last edited:
Microsoft already out engineered Sony with the Xbox One X vs the PS4 Pro. There's no reason that won't repeat this go around.
Microsoft's engineering team has clearly made great strides since the Xbox One launch.
So much partisanship around here about who will have the highest performance, yet as it stands it hardly matters. Both consoles seem such a leap from current gen that even developing for the lowest common denominator should yield some incredible results.
With that said, give me power!
With that said, give me power!
Didn't think it needed explanation... sorry! In my circles, people have the console that has the games they like. As in the exclusives. So when I say I will definitely be on PS5, it's because I know I will game games from series I already like, or from studios I like. I have had an Xbox system 3 times (not current gen) and have never gotten as invested and probably had less than 100 hours on any of them.
So no crystal ball needed ;)
Although maybe next Gen Xbox will have something I want (that is not on PC ;P) so you never know!
More performance equals out engineering? I guess people spending more money on a better PC GPU than me are out engineering me.
What's your criteria here? It's not like Sony and MS used the same components and MS squeezed more performance our of their system.
The X launched a year later for 100 dollars more. The Pro also added FP16 support and hardware acellerated support for checkerboard rendering while the X didn't. FP16 support is now standard for the next gen templates. Seems like, power aside, the Pro was more forward looking and delivered a superior power per dollar.
Microsoft took a loss on the Xbox One X at $499 a year later at 1.23TF
Sony turned a profit on the Pro on day one for $399 a year earlier at 8.6TF
Seems hard to argue that the X was a clear example of superior engineering when considering those factors.
Software engineering wise Sony has the better OS setup, but they're playing catch-up on software techniques to add in BC. I was talking about hardware Engineering tbf.
Last edited:
Yeah but which company did BC better? I think Microsoft engineers have performed some amazing wizardry and next gen won't be any different.
Prediction: Sony first parties will do more with PS5 than third parties will do with Series X.
So I'll be fine.
So I'll be fine.