they do, the problem is using theoretical peak numbers, they might not translate to the real world use number because of other bottlenecks
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Ok what is a teraflop?
- Thread starter King of Custard
- Start date
they do, the problem is using theoretical peak numbers, they might not translate to the real world use number because of other bottlenecks
Why do you say this?
There are at least 5 great posts describing what it is before your post in this thread, that explains that it's a very straight forward term for calculation power. It says a whole lot more than MHz does about how powerful a device is.
Or is it a joke? In that case why do you make the same joke as many people before you?
You call it worthless, but didn't the difference in TF between XB1 and PS4 largely correlate with the difference in resolution for most multiplat titles?
1993 - the first Ridge Racer arcade game, the hardware that ran it was capable of 400 MFLOPS which is 0.4 GFLOPS.
The original PlayStation did not even use floating point math, so 0 FLOPS. Same for Sega Saturn.
The Nintendo 64, its CPU could do 100 MFLOPS and its GPU could also do 100 MFLOPS.
The original PlayStation did not even use floating point math, so 0 FLOPS. Same for Sega Saturn.
The Nintendo 64, its CPU could do 100 MFLOPS and its GPU could also do 100 MFLOPS.
All that matters is that it's high. Ideally, higher on your preferred console/ecosystem than the other one, so you feel warm inside that you swore fealty to the right corporate overlord.
Seriously though, it's a measure of computational power that isn't necessarily indicative of the fidelity of games that will run on the hardware. It doesn't matter all that much in the end.
Seriously though, it's a measure of computational power that isn't necessarily indicative of the fidelity of games that will run on the hardware. It doesn't matter all that much in the end.
I'm not saying anything about the link between teraflops and sales numbers. Sony said it was something important to consider when buying a PS4. The higher number meant better graphics but now it doesn't mean better graphics.
It's basically how fast a car can go. It makes sense if you're putting two cars built using the same components, but one has more hp than the other.
That said, most people don't buy a car to run it on a straight track. Handling, control, acceleration are all factors that matter when it comes to performance.
PS4 and Xbox were very similar, therefore PS4 ended up being faster, although one must admit it was not really 40% faster (the difference in Tflops)
Xbox One X and PS4 Pro are not very similar, and as a consequence you can see that sometimes the One X can double the performance of a PS4 Pro, by having roughly 40% more power.
PS5 and Xbox Series X are really different, one going for a bigger but slower engine, one going for a smaller but faster one. Theoretically, the Xbox Series X GPU is 16% faster than the PS4 GPU at full speed. On top of that, if something was using 100% of CPU and GPU, you would see the Xbox series X being probably around 25 - 30% faster depending on how much the PS5 limits the GPU frequency (Cerny said it was just around 2 - 3%, but we'll see about that). But that is rarely the case, not many non first party games will push both CPU and GPU that much, especially multiplats.
How does this translate realistically to a game? If you're targeting 4K 60fps on a PS5, the XSX might be able to run the same game at around 75fps, at best.
A game that targets 30 fps? Be ready for an extra 8 fps. This is the best case scenario where both the CPU and GPU are pushed to 100%.
But why would Sony do that?
Their chip is cheaper. They spent a lot in RD, but their chip is cheaper. That should translate to a cheaper console, with its own advantages that we love to ignore or play down (who needs faster loading times, said the guy that completely ignored what Mark Cenry took 50 minutes to explain).
But nothing beats Teraflops as a way to make fun of the other team. My Xbox Series X will have a bigger D...isk than your PS5. HA!
That said, most people don't buy a car to run it on a straight track. Handling, control, acceleration are all factors that matter when it comes to performance.
PS4 and Xbox were very similar, therefore PS4 ended up being faster, although one must admit it was not really 40% faster (the difference in Tflops)
Xbox One X and PS4 Pro are not very similar, and as a consequence you can see that sometimes the One X can double the performance of a PS4 Pro, by having roughly 40% more power.
PS5 and Xbox Series X are really different, one going for a bigger but slower engine, one going for a smaller but faster one. Theoretically, the Xbox Series X GPU is 16% faster than the PS4 GPU at full speed. On top of that, if something was using 100% of CPU and GPU, you would see the Xbox series X being probably around 25 - 30% faster depending on how much the PS5 limits the GPU frequency (Cerny said it was just around 2 - 3%, but we'll see about that). But that is rarely the case, not many non first party games will push both CPU and GPU that much, especially multiplats.
How does this translate realistically to a game? If you're targeting 4K 60fps on a PS5, the XSX might be able to run the same game at around 75fps, at best.
A game that targets 30 fps? Be ready for an extra 8 fps. This is the best case scenario where both the CPU and GPU are pushed to 100%.
But why would Sony do that?
Their chip is cheaper. They spent a lot in RD, but their chip is cheaper. That should translate to a cheaper console, with its own advantages that we love to ignore or play down (who needs faster loading times, said the guy that completely ignored what Mark Cenry took 50 minutes to explain).
But nothing beats Teraflops as a way to make fun of the other team. My Xbox Series X will have a bigger D...isk than your PS5. HA!
can someone break down the following in terms of current on the shelf PC Parts. So this TFlops thing makes more sense to me.
PS5 = *this GPU/CPU (roughly)
XSX = *this GPU/CPU (roughly)
PS5 = *this GPU/CPU (roughly)
XSX = *this GPU/CPU (roughly)
Like any complex systems, bottlenecks happen. High TF won't mean jack if the rest of the system is slow.
Disc speeds, drive speeds, these things matter too.
This sounds like a stealth Sony defense post, but I have no idea who's got what FLOPS, or faster drive or anything. Just pointing out what Cerny said has merits.
Disc speeds, drive speeds, these things matter too.
This sounds like a stealth Sony defense post, but I have no idea who's got what FLOPS, or faster drive or anything. Just pointing out what Cerny said has merits.
That's what Jason Schreier was saying and he is tech minded and knows a lot of devs.
Both CPUs are roughly a Ryzen 3700X that doesn't boost as high. The cache setup may be different, but this hasn't been confirmed yet. The PS5's GPU is a higher clocked RX 5700 and the XSX doesn't really have a desktop counterpart yet, but it's more or less 30% faster than a 5700XT. Both GPUs do have newer features than current Navi/RDNA.
It's not easy to do comparisons like these because even if the paper specs are somewhat similar, there are still customisations going on that don't always make it over to desktop parts. We also don't have all the specs either.
A lot of people missed this. And I think this is an important distinction
this Is very true and the entire ecosystem tells a bigger story than just the GPU alone. I'm not ready to crown which system performs better.
Someone else talked about the bottle neck of data transfer. So that is a game changer on top of the GPUs and again someone else spoke on that being one general task. Whereas one console may be better than the other depending on the specific task.
Also I believe that at 4k 30 and maybe even 4k60 they perform exactly the same and we may only see the differences when they are pushing 8k.
honestly without seeing games first party and/or multiplat we aren't going to really know who does what better. On top of how easy it is for developers to tap into the features of each architecture brings to the table.
this is kind why the console warz are dumb. End of the day it's the games that are created and how they are utilized on the platforms that tells the whole story.
A metric that is crucial for console warriors but absolutely meaningless for and never used by actual graphics programmer.
Thank you very much!
Oh yeah, absolutely. (Tera)FLOPS are better than clock speed as a metric, but are still just one metric in a sea of many, many other inter-related elements that govern total performance. It's next to impossible which of two (closely-specced) machines will perform better unless you're incredibly knowledgeable about all aspects of computer architecture... or you simply test their performance against each other Digital Foundry style, which obviously we won't be able to do until they release.
The bottom line is: if performance of non-exclusive games is an important factor of your purchasing decision, you have no choice but to wait until both of them are released and benchmarked. And even then it's likely to vary on a game-by-game basis.
exactly this. like even while both have the same base architecture there are many tweaks taken, some different efficiencies made. even funny enough if you look at the XSX memory speeds and took an average of the two the average of the two they equal the 448 G/s that sony has ( I do know there are probably performance gains with the higher speed 10 gigs vs the lower speed 6 gig but again it all matters how that is utilized) s this is why like while we have all these specs, the real comparison will be based on what devs do at the end of the day. Im excited to see just how both approaches work and where they lag in gave development, but really the introduction of an SSD on both platforms I think will be a great thing for all games going forward and all the efficiencies brought on because of that.
I fee like this should be added to the OP. To take the writer analogy further, I'd conclude that you could probably say that Author A is better than Author B if Author A can write 10 pen strokes per second vs .05 pen strokes per second. Author B might produce some great works, but it'll take forever for them to create anything. That's how I view the difference in the current gen vs next gen.
Therefore, I'm really curious how games will end up looking on the XSX and the PS5, but the difference in TFLOPs likely won't be the key factor in how games look.
FLOPS stands for Floating Point Operations Per Second. Basically it's a measurement of how much math a GPU can do per second. It will loosely translate to GPU performance, but it's pretty hard to put it in to real world terms, since each frame in a game could involve varying amounts of math, used in any number of different things from lighting to changing the shape of objects so that transitions make sense, or to smoothing jagged lines.
The actual raw power or what can be done in a single FLOP depends a on the architecture being used and the algorithms used to do it, so individual game implementations or GPU architectures can show different performance based on different apparent power. Advanced features like Ray Tracing can be difficult to define with just TeraFLOPSs too because of dedicated hardware.
People like to use TeraFLOPSs as a metric for power, because it's an easy to compare number, but it's quite a bit more nuanced than that. All other things being equal yes, more TFLOPSs is better, but all things are never equal. And we're at such a high level of performance with these machines, except in the case of advanced features and very high framerates, a lot of developers will be able to achieve everything they want with headroom on either platform.
Next gen games finna look fire whether it's PS5 or XSeX.
The actual raw power or what can be done in a single FLOP depends a on the architecture being used and the algorithms used to do it, so individual game implementations or GPU architectures can show different performance based on different apparent power. Advanced features like Ray Tracing can be difficult to define with just TeraFLOPSs too because of dedicated hardware.
People like to use TeraFLOPSs as a metric for power, because it's an easy to compare number, but it's quite a bit more nuanced than that. All other things being equal yes, more TFLOPSs is better, but all things are never equal. And we're at such a high level of performance with these machines, except in the case of advanced features and very high framerates, a lot of developers will be able to achieve everything they want with headroom on either platform.
Next gen games finna look fire whether it's PS5 or XSeX.
you know a thread is derailed when even krejlooc post memesteraflops don't matter if all you do is 16.16 fixed-point math
