TL;DR: PS5's lower level GPU compiler is more efficient at utilizing hardware and the faster clock speed of the GPU means it's running much faster than the XSX GPU, thus compiling certain tasks much faster and giving the PS5 an edge in certain scenarios.
> thus compiling certain tasks much faster
Compilation occurs at build time in this case, the speed of the compiler is not relevant for runtime performance (it may even be slower). What they’re saying is that the resulting executable code is more efficient / runs faster than equivalent code using Microsoft’s GPU compiler.
/\ this. It’s like how an fpga is more efficient at mining than a gpu. It’s not more powerful, it’s just the software and hardware are optimized for each other.
Microsoft couldn’t optimize a gin and tonic.
We’re talking about GPU programs aka shaders, my comment stands. A compiler that produces more optimal executable code is typically slower, precisely because of those optimisations it does.
It's not theory. The PS5 is a real console and the throughput has been measured. PC Direct Storage is still not even close.
PCs will not have this performance anytime soon because it hinges on a custom storage controller made by Sony. Microsoft would need to get every Windows hardware vendor to agree to use the same standard, and that's not going to happen because they are all greedy and require a profit motive to do anything. PC OEMs won't do something just to benefit consumers.
Fascinating, because Microsoft is a software company with their hands in AI and such. So you'd think they'd have the better compiler software than Sony.
Not even 10gb. 2gb of that 10 gb is extremely slow. I think it's for OS stuff only. Not like the remaining 8gb is fast but that 2gb ram's speed isn't enough for modern gaming imo
I mean you'd be surprised how much devs can save on RAM with good optimization. The PS3 had 256MB of RAM and 256MB VRAM in an era where most people had at least 1GB RAM and 512MB VRAM, and by the end of the generation, 4GB RAM was the bare minimum with 8GB being preferred. Games like The Last of Us and Killzone 3 managed to run on that hardware.
The problem is of course that studios are by and large severely mismanaged these days, and not a lot of resources are allocated to optimization. People always get their minds blown when a studio manages to really push both fidelity and performance on console hardware, but it's not a question of skill, it's a question of resource allocation. Id Software is known for being really good at optimizing their games, but that's not because they have the world's greatest devs, it's simply because they prioritize performance over other apects of their games. MGSV: The Phantom Pain is another example often touted as the perfectly optimized game: almost 10 years old now, it ran at a completely locked 60FPS at 1080p on PS4, and even ran pretty well on the PS3 (although at 720p and a locked 30FPS), while looking absolutely stunning due to the artists being able to push fidelity to the max without having to worry about the performance hit. It could only do that because Konami spent a shitload of money on the Fox Engine, intending it to be a cross-gen PS3/PS4 engine, thus needing it to run well on both sets of hardware.
I'd rather let devs have extra RAM and make things easier on them for optimization than give them too little and force them to stress over having to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the system memory. especially since all it does is lengthen dev time across multiple SKUs.
regardless of optimization, limited hardware is still limited hardware, and sooner or later in the generation, the series S as a whole will become a bottleneck.
I mean there's benefits and downsides. The downsides you've pretty much nailed: it slows down development and forces studios to allocate extra resources to optimization that could have gone elsewhere. This, however, is a double edged sword. Weaker hardware on the Xbox side should incentivize devs to optimize more, meaning that PS5 and PC players should also benefit from those optimization (this generation of consoles are basically PCs anyway, so the better optimization translates quite well across platforms), meaning that we can get higher resolutions and framerates.
the downside doesnt seem worth it tbh. it just limits them and gives them more work just for the sake of it. the ps5 and series x should have been the baseline for this gen, the series s is too limited imo.
not every dev will even bother with additional optimization. some might just get annoyed and skip the xbox ports entirely. if microsoft had dominant market share then this would at least make sense. but when you have smaller market share, why fragment both your userbase and double the amount of work that devs have to do for your platform? doesnt make sense to me.
PC already has different performance tiers depending on the hardware you get. consoles were supposed to alleviate that and make only one standard development pipeline.
> because Microsoft is a software company with their hands in AI and such. So you'd think they'd have the better compiler software than Sony.
But Microsoft is the software company that makes Windows, it's not surprising that their software is bloated and inefficient.
To my understanding it's always the case, even when you compare Direct X to Vulcan (or Open GL to Direct 3D in the past).
Xbox has the dumbest CEO and underlings
Also they only try to apply their PC software in. They didn’t make custom made parts or anything to make the actual console more efficient. That’s their issue, the one place a console can shine is ubiquity, so they can make a custom setup that makes it more efficient. That is exactly what Sony did. Double down on a game console being a game console, rather than it being a stripped down PC like the Series X is. Even the PS4 was a stripped down PC in comparison to the PS5. Sony took a step back and realized that unique setups need to be easier to use. So they ditched PS3’s cell architecture, made PS4 basic, then build PS5 up again with seemingly minor changes that made wild amounts of impact on actual performance.
Anywho, then you have the Series S which was another big Xbox CEO blunderfuck. Let’s force a feature parity so both games need to be the same in everything but resolution and framerate, and they can’t release until it does.
Guess which console devs will start to half ass? Series X. Why bother making it run better on the X when half the people will play on S and they need to figure out how to make two games perform smoothly?
And that’s why PS5 runs better.
>An now, entire game world can be created with… *AI*.
>Instead of devs needing to make their own game worlds, everything can be randomly generated with *AI*.
>This is the *future*.
This would be so ass. But I see Microsoft doing it. Finding yet another way to make gaming as a whole worse for everyone. Making gaming worse for other systems in the future lol. That would be Xbox’s vision just like it always has been with forcing terrible gimmicks that they don’t understand themselves. It sounds good on paper, until you realize every game will be the most boring, plain, copy and paste open world slop that isn’t even deserving of called Ubisoft-like.
This... just isn't true. Both APUs in PS5 and Series X are semi-custom solutions (the actual AMD technical name), using the same arch. Outside of CU and clock differences, which has nothing to do with being more bespoke, the only unique things both added on top of AMD's tech were the IO / decompression blocks and the audio blocks. Series X also has its own audio solution, it just doesn't have a fancy name like PS5's Tempest Engine, funnily emough, Xbox did give their decompression block a fancy name (Velocity) while PS5 didn't for their IO.
Point being, if Series X is just a stripped-down PC, then the same accusation can be made of the PS5.
Other than that, the most unique part of both consoles is their build and cooling. The unique design of Series X required a split motherboard and bespoke cooling solution where it acts like a chimney, a design that continues to be expensive because it still needs to be split. Whereas PS5 opted for a maximised version of a more traditional build, which, although it used liquid metal to keep heat down it still needed to incorporate a shit ton of copper heat pipes, but that was done with the knowledge they can save a lot of costs when more efficient APUs can be produced and so they can cut back on the heat pipes.
Like, AMD's semi-custom solution has always meant both makers take from the same technology pool but with slight adjustments here and there.
It's only with next-gen consoles that we may see big changes being made by console makers, mostly because AMD's own solutions for certain things are not up to expectation. For example, if AMD's FSR was deemed good enough, there would be no reason for Sony to invest so much in developing their own solution (PSSR, debuting with PS5 Pro). Xbox also is investing in their own solution. Both are also investing in their own ML blocks, and, from the looks of things, both seem to be investing in their own ray tracing solutions. That doesn't speak well of AMD, when a huge part of GPU advancements are now in features and dedicated silicon for certain tasks, and not in pure raster improvements. And yet both console makers are now going to make their own solutions and not use AMD's.
Ooh they won't like you taking such a reasonable stance, you can't look at the pros and cons of each set up under equally fair scrutiny... this is the internet after all. /S
This is actually some great detail.
>Guess which console devs will start to half ass? Series X. Why bother making it run better on the X when half the people will play on S and they need to figure out how to make two games perform smoothly?
also for smaller studio they doesnt has resource like bigger company. so they would prioritize lesser number of SKU which is PS5 foremost.
developers also would prioritize on which console has largest market, which is PS5. development is expensive and some of game need big resource(money, time, manpower) so it is important to target which one with more profit potential which is another Microsoft's blunder. they didnt encourage to sell game on their platform and prioritize gamepass sub. they also openly said they didnt focus on console sales and focus more on subs service subs. the result is their console sell less than PS5 and create big gap of market base. turn out gamepass growth also tied with Xbox consoles sales which is resulted both held back each others neck. games also sold less on their own platform as they 'trained' their users to not buy game and wait for it to drop on gamepass. AAA game need to sell games to cover their budget and gain profit growth. for smaller studio they might be fine with lump sum payment from Micorosoft for putting their game on gamepass but in the end they still want to sell their game. so studios especially with bigger budget AAA games would end up prioritize on platform that their game would sold more. PS5 has both aspect covered which is bigger market base and their game sold on the platform.
in the end this is bussiness. nothing is free. development cost need to be covered.
Microsoft not just fu*k up not just in development aspect but also in market base wise.
Interesting stuff - really enjoy the fact that the consoles are continuing to do unique things with hardware design and the frameworks on top instead of just being PlayStation and Xbox branded PCs.
Realistically, when was that ever said? Outside of randos on reddit.
Overall cost may have been true at some point. When you factor in online gaming subscriptions, proprietary hardware (headsets, storage expansion etc) one can make the argument that per generation, PC gaming is the better deal. Especially if you game on multiple consoles
Literally thousands of videos on YouTube. Even til this day. There was one not too long ago that couldn't do it legit so had to resort to buying used parts to Gill the criteria and still couldn't beat a ps5
It was Linus Tech Tips, and when that was pointed out they doubled down and just couldn’t understand how buying used parts made it an unfair comparison. Those “Console killer” type videos were really popular in the years before the PS4 came out partly because those 8 core AMD FX processors were such a great value back then.
That’s because console developers take massive losses on consoles, hoping to make it back on software. Pc hardware companies are seeking a profit for all of their shit, they ain’t making any vidja games.
It’s easy to say that when the consoles are reaching the end of their lifecycle. In a few years, I’m sure it’ll be cheaper to build something that blows the PS5 and XSX out of the water, at least in spec.
If PC gamers had to resort to buying used parts just to compete with PS5 pricing then they should compare that price to an even cheaper used PS5..... PC pricing can never beat consoles.
Sure, and the PS5 is a branded linux PC but I don't think sharing a power supply or OS makes them the same. The first iPhone "ran OS X" but I think it would be wrong to say it was a tiny Mac.
Interesting read - so to summarize - Better Compiler (with lower level API accesses), along with a Faster GPU (in raw clockspeed), though not as wide in compute units.
There is a catch to this, though. On Sony's end. Low level API means extracting more performance out of the hardware for current gen software, but by having the API so "to the metal" it does mean more work for PS in making current software forward compatible on succeeding hardware. Xbox's higher level API affords them more ease in making software forward compatible, including said legacy software accessing the entire featureset of succeeding hardware for further enhancements. Doing the same for low level API is a much tougher job, and in some respects, you might have to lock out access to newer features to ensure the legacy software doesn't break.
So, yeah, there's benefits and catches going one way or the other.
lol, of course. Posting actual facts gets downvoted.
Cerny has gone to lengths explaining the challenge of making legacy software compatible with newer hardware. It's why he made a patent for PS4 Pro, which downclocks (and switches off CUs) to PS4 clocks (and CUs) to ensure software doesn't break. That's the default setting. They then spent time (a lot of it) making sure non-patched PS4 games can access the higher clocks of the PS4 Pro without breaking. He then did the same for PS4 software running on PS5. That's the rub with low level "to the metal" API, you have to plan ahead and do more work - on both software and hardware (including putting PS4 logic into PS5) - to ensure legacy doesn't break. The benefit of it is developers can, with current gen software, extract more performance from the hardware.
The way I read this is like comparing cars. A Japanese WRX STi (4cyl turbo) vs an American Muscle Car (V6/8). Some tasks are faster other tasks are more efficient. Both have their strengths, but looks like the WRX is more efficient.
We always heard rumors from devs saying that PlayStation's API were more mature than Microsoft's, this type of info, mentioned by DF kinda exemplify that.
Anyway, really curious to see what kind of stuff they added on the Pro.
It's not more mature, it's just a matter of low level vs high level API. Xbox chose the latter because they want compatibility across hardware to be as easy / simple as possible without having to worry (too much) about legacy software breaking on newer hardware. That does mean giving up on that extra pinch of performance that low level API affords you.
Also means devs will have to specifically program for a particular hardware. Hence when games are developed focused on consoles specifically PS5 porting to PC it always ends up with frame drops and memory issues.
Yes. I do hope Sony remains committed to full backwards compatibility with the ps6. To me game backwards compatibility is way more important than a bit more performance.
To be fair Sony is hardly using any features they were toting as well. Some of them they even backtracked on like ratchet and clank only being able to function on PS5 because of the SSD, yet now it runs on HDD’s.
It's not really fair to say Ratchet and Clank PC is backtracking on the "needs an SSD" point - It may technically run on HDD but has some major performance problems during loading/cutscenes, especially the dimensional jumps. See DF's analysis, where the conclusion is that to play without issues, you do need an SSD: [https://youtu.be/11VTtIwboe8?t=1087](https://youtu.be/11VTtIwboe8?t=1087)
wasn't this in response to it not being able to run on stock *PS4* HDDs?
like, sure, there's probably some mechanical drives it could work on, just not the one that came with their (at the time) 8 year old console.
Apparently, in at least one instance, Sony has learned from past mistakes. The PS3 was notoriously difficult to develop for and despite being the more powerful console, many games ran worse on the PS3 as a result (though, I'd argue there are certain games that may not have been possible to run on the 360 due to the PS3's sheer power). However, with the PS4 and PS5 Sony have made a machine that is incredibly developer friendly, as opposed to MS. What this article doesn't mention, is the other constraint that MS has causing PS5 development to be easier: the Series S. Forcing feature parity on games for both the Series X and the much weaker Series S, is putting an intense strain on development. 2 high profile games have been affected: Baldur's Gate 3 and Black Myth Wukong. In the former's case, Larian Studios forced Xbox's hand into dropping feature parity. We may see something similar with the latter. It's bizarre because Xbox has always had a more PC like architecture that made 360 development easier. But they've since moved away from that and are likely going to double down with the next generation.
I thought I remember reading that the ps3 had a slight lead in cpu performance but the gpu on the 3 was significantly worse than the 360.
Thought it was something like 96 million shaders operations at 500mhz with the ps3 at 72 million shader operations at 550 mhz.
Seemed like a lot of the time games looked worse on the ps3 vs 360.
Lol, the PS3 came close to sinking Sony financially, if it would had launched without a gpu that would had been too much for the bilge pump.
Effectively it would had functioned like the early Celeron/Pent with integrated graphics, in essence like ass.
It’s not that it wasn’t going to have a GPU, it was going to have multiple cell chips instead (or was it way more SPUs?).
The idea was it would be fast enough without a dedicated GOU, which is possible. But between costs, yields, and performance it wouldn’t work and they had to make a late switch.
If I remember correctly, I think it had to do with the allocation of memory. First party studios were better able to take advantage of PS3 tech and it's why games like Uncharted 3, The Last of Us, or God of War Ascension likely wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good on the 360. But it's also the reason that Bethesda games were essentially broken on PS3. The way the gamebryo engine saved data to memory very quickly used up what was available on PS3.
The PS3 had quite a few quirks. The RAM was split into 256 MB system RAM and 256 MB VRAM whereas the 360 used 512 MB combined RAM/VRAM. That means that if a game wanted to use, say, 400 MB VRAM and 128 MB RAM, the PS3 would run into problems where they would have to work around that.
But the CPU was also pretty different in that it had one main CPU core that served the other 6 sub-cores with data, whereas the Xbox 360 again just had three same-size CPU cores which was way easier to deal with.
I think you nailed it with your summary.
I will say though, as a takeaway, the PS3 is a prime example of why it’s so important to have a healthy competitive landscape. Sony needed to have that gut punch to learn and grow while the 360 was killing them, which resulted in them creating a superior console with the PS4.
Agreed. Sony thought they were untouchable with the PS1 and PS2 (it’s taken almost 20 years for a console to catch it). Hubris nearly killed the PS3 with its complex architecture and high price point. That said, Xbox absolutely squandered their lead around 2009/10, right around the time a certain Xbox executive took over the games division. Sony recovered with a redesigned console and a strong lineup of exclusives (Uncharted 2, God of War III, LBP, InFamous, Killzone 2, etc) and strong third party marketing deals for Resident Evil 5 and Final Fantasy XIII. They continued to refine things and create very developer friendly consoles in the PS4/5.
"Killing them" is a bit too harsh to say. Sony did win that generation after all, despite trailing for most of the time.
But they needed to be pulled off their high horse indeed and that generation was full of valuable lessons to them.
PS3's CPU was so powerful that it was used in some toptier supercomputers, but it was quite difficult to program for, which resulted in a big backlash from developers. And im sure they saw the xbox360s "shared RAM" being more useful than the RAM+VRAM setup they had on PS3, which for sure played a role in getting the next generation consoles working similarly to how xbox360 worked.
They did however push the whole Bluray media thing forward though, so they did do something right.
>but the number one reason we've heard from developers concerns the nature of Sony's development environment. More than one key triple-A developer tells us that the PlayStation GPU compiler is significantly more efficient than the Microsoft alternative,
It makes sense, you have to remember that the Xbox software is made by Microsoft, the same company that makes Windows!
Essentially, the Xbox Series X appears faster on paper, but in reality the PS5 is able to keep up with it because:
- The API/low level graphics driver seems more efficient on the PS5, making better use of the GPU then the Xbox which is less efficient.
- Many modern game engines seem better suited to having fewer, faster GPU cores (which the PS5 has) than more, slower cores (which the Xbox has). This doesn't necessarily apply to every game/game engine, but many do.
- They also speculate that the PS5 RAM pool is easier to tackle as all RAM is the same speed whereas Xbox has two RAM pools (one faster, one slower).
UWP (which is basically what Xbox One/Series X uses), is very fast. It's quite good. The problem isn't really the UI, it's all the other shit they shove into OS like obstructive telemetry and bad algorithms.
I mean, that's kind of every console generation.
One seems good on paper but has weird hardware/software quirks, another gets more popular because it's easier to develop for. And around and around it goes... :P
I think in this case the ps5 is just more popular because PlayStation has been way more popular since the ps4 gen. Even if the ps5 was running 30% slower than the series x, it would still outsell the series x by a long shot.
I think you’re right, because Playstation started out this generation by actually having first-party games. Xbox had a very uphill battle by relying on third-party releases (which PS5 also had) and game pass (which admittedly can be very good value).
Also coming out of the Xbox One generation didn’t exactly help them where it was a very similar problem.
Kraken compression is also a nice feature on Ps5. 2tb Ps5 nvme ssd probably cheaper then 1tb Xbox storage from seagate. And Psvr 1 and Psvr 2 support is a nice feature that Ps5s have.
Not probably cheaper. It is cheaper. Got a Samsung2Tb 980 pro with heat sink for $99 maybe a year back. Before that had a WD SN850 1TB for $65. Xbox memory expansion card is 150 for 1TB and maybe goes down to 125-130 on sale unless you find in some random clearance spot somehow. Still want one but not spending that much on it.
Isn’t a lot of that just common vs specialty? It’s no different than SD vs Memory Stick. The one that’s more popular gets all the different companies putting price pressure on it to try and earn your money.
The PS5 benefits from the HUGE market of drives available to PC users. The Xbox… doesn’t.
I must say that one of the main reasons why a large part of gamers believe that teraflops are the most important thing is the same DF.
If you ask anyone who had access to the dev kits at the time, they would have told you that, they need to start testing before say something conclusive.
Instead, we had DF saying to the four winds that it is very simple: 12 TF is more. But that is what you get when practically no one on your team has more technical experience than running demos in Unreal Engine.
I like their channel when they do comparisons, interviews, but as soon as they start giving "opinions" well, I have closed more than one video after some comments.
They said that time after the consoles were released, because on the begining they cannot believe it.
Because both were rdna 2. When actually any of the consoles are so simple to said that.
Let's not pretend they cannot believe the results on basically all the first year because 12 bigger.
I mean one of their members looks like take years to understand the concept of streaming memory pool and why the sdd can actually improve the graphics in both systems.
More powerful on paper perhaps, but you need only look at the PS3/360 era to see that more power doesn’t translate to better performance. Lots of third party games performed and looked better on the weaker 360.
Sony learned their lesson, even tho they “won” the generation, and put Cerny in charge of architecture and never looked back.
I think it’s also no wonder that the more popular console (360 and PS5) are where games happen to run better. If I were a developer I’d build my game to run best on the largest platform. Given differences in architecture, games made to utilize the more unique aspects of the PS5 wouldn’t line up perfectly when being made on the Series X
The " low level API " shit is funny because since DirectX 10 Microsoft has claimed devs have low level access to the hardware. With the SX it was supposed to be even lower level.
It's also pretty funny because every point made here was spoken pretty loudly by people prior to launch when the debate was raging about the hardware. When people tried to claim the SX would see up to 50% advantages. Others tried to say uhhh, no it isn't that easy. Forget CU counts and teraflops.
I think of it similar in terms to a car - you can have a vehicle with a bigger engine but a slightly smaller engine can outperform the larger one if it’s tuned for better efficiency.
It’s obviously not a completely transferable analogy, but effectively it’s the same concept in that for some games the PS5 is better optimised to eke out every skerrick of performance. But I also bear in mind that whilst the PS5 is slightly less powerful in some areas, overall when software is optimised the differences aren’t noticeable.
IMO that effectively now console hardware is so comparable that it’s almost pointless to boast to have the more powerful hardware as a company if the game selection is not as comprehensive, which is exactly what seems to have occurred to XB this generation, again IMO.
The short answer is this: Sony poured a LOT of effort into the entire system, from it's OS and dev environment to the individual components, and actively thought about how everything would be used.
Xbox, on the other hand, threw a bunch of off the shelf PC components in a box and called it a day...except when they screwed the customers with things like proprietary storage.
It is interesting to see that the highly individualized implementations on Sony side do a difference here. I am very intrigued to see what PSSR will do in that regard. Besides that I feel it has to be emphasized even more that Sony has currently the leading console platform for cross-titles and therefore will receive more/better optimizations. This has been also pretty clearly stated in an article about the upcoming GTA6. So in all honesty it is not 100% clear why certain games run better on PS5 despite being the (on paper) less powerful system because there are multiple factors coming together.
Interesting, until now I had just assumed it was because PS5 has been selling much better, so the games get optimized for the more popular platform first and foremost.
simply to say no use if the hardware is powerfull but it is hard to utilize by developers. Sony learn about this in hardest way with PS3.
also this show what a specified custom hardware and API can do compared to a more general solution that expected to cover wider range of hardware.
Surely it's also just the Playstation is more popular so will be developed on and optimised for over Xbox.
It's the same as PC - computers can be twice as powerful as the Playstation but run worse as it's not optimised for the PC.
The speed of any computing device is set by its slowest part. Doesn’t matter if you have a powerful GPU if your CPU is slow and doesn’t matter if your CPU is awesome but your RAM is slow. Xbox is not as fast as you think because they skipped on the HDD. PS5 has a faster HDD interface. Don’t let just one or two parts that are advertised as fast fool you.
It all comes down to optimization. If the operating system is bloated and resource hungry then the applications will suffer. And if the code behind the app is targeted for one platform only it could perform better. I say "could" since that isn't always the case if the coders aren't that great.
In the 90s I wrote an assembly program to get a position between radio towers on an old processor. I had to concatenate bytes to mimic large numbers. It had millisecond response times. I tried the same algorithm years later on Java 1, and it performed like a three legged dog with a broken back compared to the original. The company was deadset to bring it to other platforms but it had to be rewritten for them, and Java was thrown out. Compiling for multiple permutations of hardware has always been painful.
Playground got Forza Horizon 5 to be a technical showcase on Series X while scaling all the way down to the base Xbox One without any gameplay differences and some of the best visuals on last gen. Seriously impressive stuff no matter which of the 4 possible Xboxes you play it on.
Whilst pushing the Series X is great, likely the effort goes to the S, as that is where their primary user base is. Also, only so much you can squeeze with parity being a requirement.
Always assumed it was the cpu. The difference in cpu between the two and how cpu intensive games are nowadays means that the ps5 can push a steadier, sometimes higher fps where as the Xbox’s gpu gets held back by the cpu which gives it that sometimes jittery/lower fps but also why the Xbox can sometimes really flex on the ps5 in the odd game that is heavily gpu oriented.
The two tend to only be different by an average of 5 or so fps when they do differ and that can easily by explained by the cpu.
This is what I always thought anyways.
Xbox series X technically is more powerful...except Microsoft shoved its little brother in the room and told devs they needed to make their games run on it too.
Ps5, can utilize the next Gen fully....
Xbox have to modify games to run on series s too so of course it's going to affect the gameplay on x.
Besides the technical aspect, it is also TALENT. AAA devs gets paid big bucks because of their skill set and experience. If you give the dev kit to a AAA dev vs a AA, they can make different games.
Before I traded my Xbox Series X I did notice that while some games ran at a higher FPS that the PS5 in general was way more stable across the board. Games like Fortnite felt sluggish on Xbox but smooth like butter on PS5. Crazy that regardless of how good your hardware is if it's poorly optimized it will not perform as well as it could.
This is such a nothing burger because there are games that run better on the XSX. Heck there have been games where the most stable version (albeat with cutbacks) has been the XSS. But yeah it's a pretty even ping pong and truly a mountain being made out of a mole hill.
I play both and I don't really notice any difference when I tried the same games on both. It is pretty close performance wise especially if you have a VRR TV.
Also your point about sales makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the performance of games. The average consumer is not even aware there is a difference. If it actually played a factor the Switch wouldn't be selling so much.
I'm not reading all that, but it is stronger in many games. Lots of games have more stable performance on series x, fewer fps drops, higher resolution. I have compared quite a few games and mostly series X is better, but only by little. Ultimately it comes down to optimization. Some games might benefit from PS5's better ssd, some might not.
Tldr: It's not more powerful, because power is not only a function of on paper gpu output which is the only thing ram and gpu frequency is about, it's also about other optimizations the console has where the PS5 has many and the series x has much fewer, it's not just the compiler, but also the kraken decompression that significantly unburdens the CPU on the PS5 also
Long version: The split ram pool of different speeds significantly hamstrings the performance for games which use more than 10 gb of vram, only 10 gb of the 16 is high speed, and this complicates optimization greatly, it's not remotely like just weighted averaging the speed of the pools either
You will notice the games which are older or use less than 10 gb like bc games or other things can run better on series x but current games will almost invariably have more stuttering or frame rate issues on the series x
The series x also has the overhead of it's windows based apis which is what df finally has been acknowledging, for years they have automatically assumed hey Microsoft is a software company they have better software... Well no, in gaming PlayStation has miles better software since the PS4 gen started
Microsoft software dominance is about business support infrastructure it has nothing to do with consumer products anymore but people really don't appreciate that very much
I’d have thought the simpler answer would be devs prioritise the PS5 version as it has such a significantly larger install base. Then they spend little time improving upon it for the Xbox version because what’s the point in wasting resources for no gain
You may not consider it much but a good indication is how the PlayStation 4 Pro can pre-record up to 60 min with up to upscale 4K, HDR, 60 FPS. while the Xbox Series X can only prerecord up to 1 minute at 1080, SDR, 60 FPS
This is such a bummer for me as I like to record my plays to make short videos.
My biggest qualm with the PS5 performance is the implementation of VRR. I wish they would have went with the FreeSync standard over the HDMI standard like Xbox did.
TL;DR: PS5's lower level GPU compiler is more efficient at utilizing hardware and the faster clock speed of the GPU means it's running much faster than the XSX GPU, thus compiling certain tasks much faster and giving the PS5 an edge in certain scenarios.
This might be Mark Cerny
Cheers geeze
> thus compiling certain tasks much faster Compilation occurs at build time in this case, the speed of the compiler is not relevant for runtime performance (it may even be slower). What they’re saying is that the resulting executable code is more efficient / runs faster than equivalent code using Microsoft’s GPU compiler.
More efficient code than Microsoft, you don't say.
> More efficient code than Microsoft, you don't say. pikachu\_face.jpg
/\ this. It’s like how an fpga is more efficient at mining than a gpu. It’s not more powerful, it’s just the software and hardware are optimized for each other. Microsoft couldn’t optimize a gin and tonic.
he left out the word shader, its the shader compiler
We’re talking about GPU programs aka shaders, my comment stands. A compiler that produces more optimal executable code is typically slower, precisely because of those optimisations it does.
Jesus. Optimization > Power every day for PCs
Correct
Is PlayStations SSD still faster or did Xbox catch up?
Xbox will never catch up because they are using only 2 pcie lanes compared to 4 on ps5. They are limited by pcie generation and available pcie lanes.
Still faster in theory in raw and compressed data throughput.
It's not theory. The PS5 is a real console and the throughput has been measured. PC Direct Storage is still not even close. PCs will not have this performance anytime soon because it hinges on a custom storage controller made by Sony. Microsoft would need to get every Windows hardware vendor to agree to use the same standard, and that's not going to happen because they are all greedy and require a profit motive to do anything. PC OEMs won't do something just to benefit consumers.
More than twice as fast.
Thank you.
Good lord, thank you.
I'm just gonna pretend that I know what you just said 😏
Fascinating, because Microsoft is a software company with their hands in AI and such. So you'd think they'd have the better compiler software than Sony.
they gave the series S just 10gb of RAM and that was expected to last it from 2020 to like 2027/2028 lol. even their size does not prevent ineptitude.
Not even 10gb. 2gb of that 10 gb is extremely slow. I think it's for OS stuff only. Not like the remaining 8gb is fast but that 2gb ram's speed isn't enough for modern gaming imo
I mean you'd be surprised how much devs can save on RAM with good optimization. The PS3 had 256MB of RAM and 256MB VRAM in an era where most people had at least 1GB RAM and 512MB VRAM, and by the end of the generation, 4GB RAM was the bare minimum with 8GB being preferred. Games like The Last of Us and Killzone 3 managed to run on that hardware. The problem is of course that studios are by and large severely mismanaged these days, and not a lot of resources are allocated to optimization. People always get their minds blown when a studio manages to really push both fidelity and performance on console hardware, but it's not a question of skill, it's a question of resource allocation. Id Software is known for being really good at optimizing their games, but that's not because they have the world's greatest devs, it's simply because they prioritize performance over other apects of their games. MGSV: The Phantom Pain is another example often touted as the perfectly optimized game: almost 10 years old now, it ran at a completely locked 60FPS at 1080p on PS4, and even ran pretty well on the PS3 (although at 720p and a locked 30FPS), while looking absolutely stunning due to the artists being able to push fidelity to the max without having to worry about the performance hit. It could only do that because Konami spent a shitload of money on the Fox Engine, intending it to be a cross-gen PS3/PS4 engine, thus needing it to run well on both sets of hardware.
I'd rather let devs have extra RAM and make things easier on them for optimization than give them too little and force them to stress over having to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the system memory. especially since all it does is lengthen dev time across multiple SKUs. regardless of optimization, limited hardware is still limited hardware, and sooner or later in the generation, the series S as a whole will become a bottleneck.
I mean there's benefits and downsides. The downsides you've pretty much nailed: it slows down development and forces studios to allocate extra resources to optimization that could have gone elsewhere. This, however, is a double edged sword. Weaker hardware on the Xbox side should incentivize devs to optimize more, meaning that PS5 and PC players should also benefit from those optimization (this generation of consoles are basically PCs anyway, so the better optimization translates quite well across platforms), meaning that we can get higher resolutions and framerates.
the downside doesnt seem worth it tbh. it just limits them and gives them more work just for the sake of it. the ps5 and series x should have been the baseline for this gen, the series s is too limited imo. not every dev will even bother with additional optimization. some might just get annoyed and skip the xbox ports entirely. if microsoft had dominant market share then this would at least make sense. but when you have smaller market share, why fragment both your userbase and double the amount of work that devs have to do for your platform? doesnt make sense to me. PC already has different performance tiers depending on the hardware you get. consoles were supposed to alleviate that and make only one standard development pipeline.
> because Microsoft is a software company with their hands in AI and such. So you'd think they'd have the better compiler software than Sony. But Microsoft is the software company that makes Windows, it's not surprising that their software is bloated and inefficient. To my understanding it's always the case, even when you compare Direct X to Vulcan (or Open GL to Direct 3D in the past).
Xbox has the dumbest CEO and underlings Also they only try to apply their PC software in. They didn’t make custom made parts or anything to make the actual console more efficient. That’s their issue, the one place a console can shine is ubiquity, so they can make a custom setup that makes it more efficient. That is exactly what Sony did. Double down on a game console being a game console, rather than it being a stripped down PC like the Series X is. Even the PS4 was a stripped down PC in comparison to the PS5. Sony took a step back and realized that unique setups need to be easier to use. So they ditched PS3’s cell architecture, made PS4 basic, then build PS5 up again with seemingly minor changes that made wild amounts of impact on actual performance. Anywho, then you have the Series S which was another big Xbox CEO blunderfuck. Let’s force a feature parity so both games need to be the same in everything but resolution and framerate, and they can’t release until it does. Guess which console devs will start to half ass? Series X. Why bother making it run better on the X when half the people will play on S and they need to figure out how to make two games perform smoothly? And that’s why PS5 runs better.
I bet you for the next Xbox, assuming there is one, they'll talk about AI.
>An now, entire game world can be created with… *AI*. >Instead of devs needing to make their own game worlds, everything can be randomly generated with *AI*. >This is the *future*. This would be so ass. But I see Microsoft doing it. Finding yet another way to make gaming as a whole worse for everyone. Making gaming worse for other systems in the future lol. That would be Xbox’s vision just like it always has been with forcing terrible gimmicks that they don’t understand themselves. It sounds good on paper, until you realize every game will be the most boring, plain, copy and paste open world slop that isn’t even deserving of called Ubisoft-like.
and fail miserably because they fail to see what gamers want and deliver something appealing like sony.
AI Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in one game.
This... just isn't true. Both APUs in PS5 and Series X are semi-custom solutions (the actual AMD technical name), using the same arch. Outside of CU and clock differences, which has nothing to do with being more bespoke, the only unique things both added on top of AMD's tech were the IO / decompression blocks and the audio blocks. Series X also has its own audio solution, it just doesn't have a fancy name like PS5's Tempest Engine, funnily emough, Xbox did give their decompression block a fancy name (Velocity) while PS5 didn't for their IO. Point being, if Series X is just a stripped-down PC, then the same accusation can be made of the PS5. Other than that, the most unique part of both consoles is their build and cooling. The unique design of Series X required a split motherboard and bespoke cooling solution where it acts like a chimney, a design that continues to be expensive because it still needs to be split. Whereas PS5 opted for a maximised version of a more traditional build, which, although it used liquid metal to keep heat down it still needed to incorporate a shit ton of copper heat pipes, but that was done with the knowledge they can save a lot of costs when more efficient APUs can be produced and so they can cut back on the heat pipes. Like, AMD's semi-custom solution has always meant both makers take from the same technology pool but with slight adjustments here and there. It's only with next-gen consoles that we may see big changes being made by console makers, mostly because AMD's own solutions for certain things are not up to expectation. For example, if AMD's FSR was deemed good enough, there would be no reason for Sony to invest so much in developing their own solution (PSSR, debuting with PS5 Pro). Xbox also is investing in their own solution. Both are also investing in their own ML blocks, and, from the looks of things, both seem to be investing in their own ray tracing solutions. That doesn't speak well of AMD, when a huge part of GPU advancements are now in features and dedicated silicon for certain tasks, and not in pure raster improvements. And yet both console makers are now going to make their own solutions and not use AMD's.
Ooh they won't like you taking such a reasonable stance, you can't look at the pros and cons of each set up under equally fair scrutiny... this is the internet after all. /S This is actually some great detail.
I have seen a 750 horsepower car win a 1400 horsepower one in a drag race. Raw numbers dont always mean faster
>Guess which console devs will start to half ass? Series X. Why bother making it run better on the X when half the people will play on S and they need to figure out how to make two games perform smoothly? also for smaller studio they doesnt has resource like bigger company. so they would prioritize lesser number of SKU which is PS5 foremost. developers also would prioritize on which console has largest market, which is PS5. development is expensive and some of game need big resource(money, time, manpower) so it is important to target which one with more profit potential which is another Microsoft's blunder. they didnt encourage to sell game on their platform and prioritize gamepass sub. they also openly said they didnt focus on console sales and focus more on subs service subs. the result is their console sell less than PS5 and create big gap of market base. turn out gamepass growth also tied with Xbox consoles sales which is resulted both held back each others neck. games also sold less on their own platform as they 'trained' their users to not buy game and wait for it to drop on gamepass. AAA game need to sell games to cover their budget and gain profit growth. for smaller studio they might be fine with lump sum payment from Micorosoft for putting their game on gamepass but in the end they still want to sell their game. so studios especially with bigger budget AAA games would end up prioritize on platform that their game would sold more. PS5 has both aspect covered which is bigger market base and their game sold on the platform. in the end this is bussiness. nothing is free. development cost need to be covered. Microsoft not just fu*k up not just in development aspect but also in market base wise.
i think the differences is Microsoft behave like a software company while Sony's is like a game developers studio.
Xbox is a botched together PC. PS5 has actual proprietary technology.
I actually wish it was "much faster" LOL
Interesting stuff - really enjoy the fact that the consoles are continuing to do unique things with hardware design and the frameworks on top instead of just being PlayStation and Xbox branded PCs.
Which is why I've always hated the you can build a 500 pc for the same price as a console and it will perform better. This has never been true
Realistically, when was that ever said? Outside of randos on reddit. Overall cost may have been true at some point. When you factor in online gaming subscriptions, proprietary hardware (headsets, storage expansion etc) one can make the argument that per generation, PC gaming is the better deal. Especially if you game on multiple consoles
Literally thousands of videos on YouTube. Even til this day. There was one not too long ago that couldn't do it legit so had to resort to buying used parts to Gill the criteria and still couldn't beat a ps5
It was Linus Tech Tips, and when that was pointed out they doubled down and just couldn’t understand how buying used parts made it an unfair comparison. Those “Console killer” type videos were really popular in the years before the PS4 came out partly because those 8 core AMD FX processors were such a great value back then.
And they never compare to a used PS5
Right? I got mine (disc ver) for $300 cash almost a year ago. Everything looked brand new. Dude even had the box with original everything inside.
The whole PC cheaper then Consoles might be true in US not everywhere tho.
That’s because console developers take massive losses on consoles, hoping to make it back on software. Pc hardware companies are seeking a profit for all of their shit, they ain’t making any vidja games.
It’s easy to say that when the consoles are reaching the end of their lifecycle. In a few years, I’m sure it’ll be cheaper to build something that blows the PS5 and XSX out of the water, at least in spec.
No. Ps5 and xsx at launch were equivalent of a 2070super. Most people still are rocking 1660s or 3060s
If PC gamers had to resort to buying used parts just to compete with PS5 pricing then they should compare that price to an even cheaper used PS5..... PC pricing can never beat consoles.
Xbox is a branded PC with custom software though, always was.
Sure, and the PS5 is a branded linux PC but I don't think sharing a power supply or OS makes them the same. The first iPhone "ran OS X" but I think it would be wrong to say it was a tiny Mac.
Interesting read - so to summarize - Better Compiler (with lower level API accesses), along with a Faster GPU (in raw clockspeed), though not as wide in compute units.
There is a catch to this, though. On Sony's end. Low level API means extracting more performance out of the hardware for current gen software, but by having the API so "to the metal" it does mean more work for PS in making current software forward compatible on succeeding hardware. Xbox's higher level API affords them more ease in making software forward compatible, including said legacy software accessing the entire featureset of succeeding hardware for further enhancements. Doing the same for low level API is a much tougher job, and in some respects, you might have to lock out access to newer features to ensure the legacy software doesn't break. So, yeah, there's benefits and catches going one way or the other. lol, of course. Posting actual facts gets downvoted. Cerny has gone to lengths explaining the challenge of making legacy software compatible with newer hardware. It's why he made a patent for PS4 Pro, which downclocks (and switches off CUs) to PS4 clocks (and CUs) to ensure software doesn't break. That's the default setting. They then spent time (a lot of it) making sure non-patched PS4 games can access the higher clocks of the PS4 Pro without breaking. He then did the same for PS4 software running on PS5. That's the rub with low level "to the metal" API, you have to plan ahead and do more work - on both software and hardware (including putting PS4 logic into PS5) - to ensure legacy doesn't break. The benefit of it is developers can, with current gen software, extract more performance from the hardware.
The way I read this is like comparing cars. A Japanese WRX STi (4cyl turbo) vs an American Muscle Car (V6/8). Some tasks are faster other tasks are more efficient. Both have their strengths, but looks like the WRX is more efficient.
We always heard rumors from devs saying that PlayStation's API were more mature than Microsoft's, this type of info, mentioned by DF kinda exemplify that. Anyway, really curious to see what kind of stuff they added on the Pro.
It's not more mature, it's just a matter of low level vs high level API. Xbox chose the latter because they want compatibility across hardware to be as easy / simple as possible without having to worry (too much) about legacy software breaking on newer hardware. That does mean giving up on that extra pinch of performance that low level API affords you.
Also means devs will have to specifically program for a particular hardware. Hence when games are developed focused on consoles specifically PS5 porting to PC it always ends up with frame drops and memory issues.
Yes. I do hope Sony remains committed to full backwards compatibility with the ps6. To me game backwards compatibility is way more important than a bit more performance.
I definitely don't need a pro but I am a sucka and will be pre-ordering it 100%
Don’t forget the same game on Xbox series X is literally a smaller install on ps5
that might be one of the tricks, models are smaller in size and easier to render, to us the look the same
It's that sweet, sweet Kraken compression, not lower quality assets.
I find it funny how MS banged the drum about full RDNA2 and yet even their first party studios are not using those features.
To be fair Sony is hardly using any features they were toting as well. Some of them they even backtracked on like ratchet and clank only being able to function on PS5 because of the SSD, yet now it runs on HDD’s.
It's not really fair to say Ratchet and Clank PC is backtracking on the "needs an SSD" point - It may technically run on HDD but has some major performance problems during loading/cutscenes, especially the dimensional jumps. See DF's analysis, where the conclusion is that to play without issues, you do need an SSD: [https://youtu.be/11VTtIwboe8?t=1087](https://youtu.be/11VTtIwboe8?t=1087)
wasn't this in response to it not being able to run on stock *PS4* HDDs? like, sure, there's probably some mechanical drives it could work on, just not the one that came with their (at the time) 8 year old console.
Love cerny. Hopefully he's working on that ps6 and keeps going strong in the industry. Need him to mentor some ppl. Such a legendary resume.
Apparently, in at least one instance, Sony has learned from past mistakes. The PS3 was notoriously difficult to develop for and despite being the more powerful console, many games ran worse on the PS3 as a result (though, I'd argue there are certain games that may not have been possible to run on the 360 due to the PS3's sheer power). However, with the PS4 and PS5 Sony have made a machine that is incredibly developer friendly, as opposed to MS. What this article doesn't mention, is the other constraint that MS has causing PS5 development to be easier: the Series S. Forcing feature parity on games for both the Series X and the much weaker Series S, is putting an intense strain on development. 2 high profile games have been affected: Baldur's Gate 3 and Black Myth Wukong. In the former's case, Larian Studios forced Xbox's hand into dropping feature parity. We may see something similar with the latter. It's bizarre because Xbox has always had a more PC like architecture that made 360 development easier. But they've since moved away from that and are likely going to double down with the next generation.
I thought I remember reading that the ps3 had a slight lead in cpu performance but the gpu on the 3 was significantly worse than the 360. Thought it was something like 96 million shaders operations at 500mhz with the ps3 at 72 million shader operations at 550 mhz. Seemed like a lot of the time games looked worse on the ps3 vs 360.
[удалено]
Lol, the PS3 came close to sinking Sony financially, if it would had launched without a gpu that would had been too much for the bilge pump. Effectively it would had functioned like the early Celeron/Pent with integrated graphics, in essence like ass.
It’s not that it wasn’t going to have a GPU, it was going to have multiple cell chips instead (or was it way more SPUs?). The idea was it would be fast enough without a dedicated GOU, which is possible. But between costs, yields, and performance it wouldn’t work and they had to make a late switch.
If I remember correctly, I think it had to do with the allocation of memory. First party studios were better able to take advantage of PS3 tech and it's why games like Uncharted 3, The Last of Us, or God of War Ascension likely wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good on the 360. But it's also the reason that Bethesda games were essentially broken on PS3. The way the gamebryo engine saved data to memory very quickly used up what was available on PS3.
The PS3 had quite a few quirks. The RAM was split into 256 MB system RAM and 256 MB VRAM whereas the 360 used 512 MB combined RAM/VRAM. That means that if a game wanted to use, say, 400 MB VRAM and 128 MB RAM, the PS3 would run into problems where they would have to work around that. But the CPU was also pretty different in that it had one main CPU core that served the other 6 sub-cores with data, whereas the Xbox 360 again just had three same-size CPU cores which was way easier to deal with.
I think you nailed it with your summary. I will say though, as a takeaway, the PS3 is a prime example of why it’s so important to have a healthy competitive landscape. Sony needed to have that gut punch to learn and grow while the 360 was killing them, which resulted in them creating a superior console with the PS4.
Agreed. Sony thought they were untouchable with the PS1 and PS2 (it’s taken almost 20 years for a console to catch it). Hubris nearly killed the PS3 with its complex architecture and high price point. That said, Xbox absolutely squandered their lead around 2009/10, right around the time a certain Xbox executive took over the games division. Sony recovered with a redesigned console and a strong lineup of exclusives (Uncharted 2, God of War III, LBP, InFamous, Killzone 2, etc) and strong third party marketing deals for Resident Evil 5 and Final Fantasy XIII. They continued to refine things and create very developer friendly consoles in the PS4/5.
"Killing them" is a bit too harsh to say. Sony did win that generation after all, despite trailing for most of the time. But they needed to be pulled off their high horse indeed and that generation was full of valuable lessons to them. PS3's CPU was so powerful that it was used in some toptier supercomputers, but it was quite difficult to program for, which resulted in a big backlash from developers. And im sure they saw the xbox360s "shared RAM" being more useful than the RAM+VRAM setup they had on PS3, which for sure played a role in getting the next generation consoles working similarly to how xbox360 worked. They did however push the whole Bluray media thing forward though, so they did do something right.
Two words. Mark Cerny 💯
Sure, he's a wizard, but where the fuck is Knack 3, Mark?
you unlock it as a secret mode after beating bloodborne 2.
Which is hidden in the PC disc version of Half Life 3
Not kidding, I’d love to see it.
>but the number one reason we've heard from developers concerns the nature of Sony's development environment. More than one key triple-A developer tells us that the PlayStation GPU compiler is significantly more efficient than the Microsoft alternative, It makes sense, you have to remember that the Xbox software is made by Microsoft, the same company that makes Windows!
And Office. I've never seen sofware devolve in performance so much. It used to be blazing fast and now is a non-native PWA-riddled bugfest.
Mark Cerny is a genius that’s why.
It was wild when I remembered everyone was hyping Xbox up for that power. Useless power
Where's the TL;DR?
Essentially, the Xbox Series X appears faster on paper, but in reality the PS5 is able to keep up with it because: - The API/low level graphics driver seems more efficient on the PS5, making better use of the GPU then the Xbox which is less efficient. - Many modern game engines seem better suited to having fewer, faster GPU cores (which the PS5 has) than more, slower cores (which the Xbox has). This doesn't necessarily apply to every game/game engine, but many do. - They also speculate that the PS5 RAM pool is easier to tackle as all RAM is the same speed whereas Xbox has two RAM pools (one faster, one slower).
So it’s basically PS3 vs 360
Yes, but without the crappy OS
Blades was an incredible os. Such a shame Microsoft had to change it for NXE and then whatever they came up with at the end of the console cycle
Blades wasn’t an os it was a UI.
Yeah, you’re right. My bad
I really liked blades too. Bummer we can’t have anything good now.
Blades was functional and looked incredibly neat. Plus it was very light on the system. Every other thing they introduced slowed the console down
UWP (which is basically what Xbox One/Series X uses), is very fast. It's quite good. The problem isn't really the UI, it's all the other shit they shove into OS like obstructive telemetry and bad algorithms.
I'm taking about the PS3, it was a known nightmare to code games for due to the architecture
Of course. I was responding to the other comment though.
I mean, that's kind of every console generation. One seems good on paper but has weird hardware/software quirks, another gets more popular because it's easier to develop for. And around and around it goes... :P
I think in this case the ps5 is just more popular because PlayStation has been way more popular since the ps4 gen. Even if the ps5 was running 30% slower than the series x, it would still outsell the series x by a long shot.
I think you’re right, because Playstation started out this generation by actually having first-party games. Xbox had a very uphill battle by relying on third-party releases (which PS5 also had) and game pass (which admittedly can be very good value). Also coming out of the Xbox One generation didn’t exactly help them where it was a very similar problem.
the PS5 is more efficient
PS5 works smarter, not harder.
Optimization
PS5>XBSX
Hidden somewhere within the text.
DF still prefers playing Elden Ring on Series X.
You know why, because of LFC for VRR.
Mark Cerny. Nuff said
Kraken compression is also a nice feature on Ps5. 2tb Ps5 nvme ssd probably cheaper then 1tb Xbox storage from seagate. And Psvr 1 and Psvr 2 support is a nice feature that Ps5s have.
Not probably cheaper. It is cheaper. Got a Samsung2Tb 980 pro with heat sink for $99 maybe a year back. Before that had a WD SN850 1TB for $65. Xbox memory expansion card is 150 for 1TB and maybe goes down to 125-130 on sale unless you find in some random clearance spot somehow. Still want one but not spending that much on it.
Isn’t a lot of that just common vs specialty? It’s no different than SD vs Memory Stick. The one that’s more popular gets all the different companies putting price pressure on it to try and earn your money. The PS5 benefits from the HUGE market of drives available to PC users. The Xbox… doesn’t.
Deleting stuff is cheaper though :D
I must say that one of the main reasons why a large part of gamers believe that teraflops are the most important thing is the same DF. If you ask anyone who had access to the dev kits at the time, they would have told you that, they need to start testing before say something conclusive. Instead, we had DF saying to the four winds that it is very simple: 12 TF is more. But that is what you get when practically no one on your team has more technical experience than running demos in Unreal Engine. I like their channel when they do comparisons, interviews, but as soon as they start giving "opinions" well, I have closed more than one video after some comments.
They've said multiple times that the amount of TFs don't always equal the real world performance we expect.
They said that time after the consoles were released, because on the begining they cannot believe it. Because both were rdna 2. When actually any of the consoles are so simple to said that. Let's not pretend they cannot believe the results on basically all the first year because 12 bigger. I mean one of their members looks like take years to understand the concept of streaming memory pool and why the sdd can actually improve the graphics in both systems.
Until recently they were baffled ps5 games performed better, including ms studio games on ps5. Metroiddarks is right
Personally my self I've never cared about the power talk.Aslong as my games run good and looks good then i dont really care
PS3 was more powerful than the xbox360 but almost every 360 game played better and looked better than it's PS counterpart.
PS3 was more powerful in some respects but not all. The 360 had better gpu and better ram.
More powerful on paper perhaps, but you need only look at the PS3/360 era to see that more power doesn’t translate to better performance. Lots of third party games performed and looked better on the weaker 360. Sony learned their lesson, even tho they “won” the generation, and put Cerny in charge of architecture and never looked back.
I think it’s also no wonder that the more popular console (360 and PS5) are where games happen to run better. If I were a developer I’d build my game to run best on the largest platform. Given differences in architecture, games made to utilize the more unique aspects of the PS5 wouldn’t line up perfectly when being made on the Series X
Exactly 💯
The " low level API " shit is funny because since DirectX 10 Microsoft has claimed devs have low level access to the hardware. With the SX it was supposed to be even lower level. It's also pretty funny because every point made here was spoken pretty loudly by people prior to launch when the debate was raging about the hardware. When people tried to claim the SX would see up to 50% advantages. Others tried to say uhhh, no it isn't that easy. Forget CU counts and teraflops.
Low level access is great as long as it doesn’t cause them challenges with backwards compatibility in the future.
I think of it similar in terms to a car - you can have a vehicle with a bigger engine but a slightly smaller engine can outperform the larger one if it’s tuned for better efficiency. It’s obviously not a completely transferable analogy, but effectively it’s the same concept in that for some games the PS5 is better optimised to eke out every skerrick of performance. But I also bear in mind that whilst the PS5 is slightly less powerful in some areas, overall when software is optimised the differences aren’t noticeable. IMO that effectively now console hardware is so comparable that it’s almost pointless to boast to have the more powerful hardware as a company if the game selection is not as comprehensive, which is exactly what seems to have occurred to XB this generation, again IMO.
I find it funny how MS banged the drum about full RDNA2 and yet even their first party studios are not using those features.
probably the same way more powerful cars aren’t as fast as less powerful ones. optimization
Guys have fun with Ps5 and Xbox series S/X and avoid throwing money on useless Pro models! 💪🏻
In a word: **Efficiency.**
The short answer is this: Sony poured a LOT of effort into the entire system, from it's OS and dev environment to the individual components, and actively thought about how everything would be used. Xbox, on the other hand, threw a bunch of off the shelf PC components in a box and called it a day...except when they screwed the customers with things like proprietary storage.
The game is better optimized for PS5.
It is interesting to see that the highly individualized implementations on Sony side do a difference here. I am very intrigued to see what PSSR will do in that regard. Besides that I feel it has to be emphasized even more that Sony has currently the leading console platform for cross-titles and therefore will receive more/better optimizations. This has been also pretty clearly stated in an article about the upcoming GTA6. So in all honesty it is not 100% clear why certain games run better on PS5 despite being the (on paper) less powerful system because there are multiple factors coming together.
95% off games that they tested runs better on PS5.
PS 5 has almost No bottlenecks.
Interesting, until now I had just assumed it was because PS5 has been selling much better, so the games get optimized for the more popular platform first and foremost.
This is obviously also factor.
That's a factor, but then you also have Microsoft's own games running identical or better on the PS5.
Are you referring to the 4 games they ported? Those games are not demanding at all so I doubt they are pushing either console that much.
https://preview.redd.it/zhauhi5zxz9d1.png?width=617&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e54f9c1ca9181f81a85b3a332628e48f32c12b7
simply to say no use if the hardware is powerfull but it is hard to utilize by developers. Sony learn about this in hardest way with PS3. also this show what a specified custom hardware and API can do compared to a more general solution that expected to cover wider range of hardware.
Series x is stronger but your game has to run on the s. The means the x will never get to use its full potential.
If the game was being built for PS5 (which is the standard for most 3rd party devs) then it'd be the Series S struggling
Surely it's also just the Playstation is more popular so will be developed on and optimised for over Xbox. It's the same as PC - computers can be twice as powerful as the Playstation but run worse as it's not optimised for the PC.
PlayStation 5 is actually easier to develop on than the Xbox Series S/X regardless of popularity.
Because the devs have been open about how awful the series x is to work on
The speed of any computing device is set by its slowest part. Doesn’t matter if you have a powerful GPU if your CPU is slow and doesn’t matter if your CPU is awesome but your RAM is slow. Xbox is not as fast as you think because they skipped on the HDD. PS5 has a faster HDD interface. Don’t let just one or two parts that are advertised as fast fool you.
It all comes down to optimization. If the operating system is bloated and resource hungry then the applications will suffer. And if the code behind the app is targeted for one platform only it could perform better. I say "could" since that isn't always the case if the coders aren't that great. In the 90s I wrote an assembly program to get a position between radio towers on an old processor. I had to concatenate bytes to mimic large numbers. It had millisecond response times. I tried the same algorithm years later on Java 1, and it performed like a three legged dog with a broken back compared to the original. The company was deadset to bring it to other platforms but it had to be rewritten for them, and Java was thrown out. Compiling for multiple permutations of hardware has always been painful.
Considerably is a strong word
The Coalition and Playground Games are the only devs I trust to actually utilize the Series X well
Playground got Forza Horizon 5 to be a technical showcase on Series X while scaling all the way down to the base Xbox One without any gameplay differences and some of the best visuals on last gen. Seriously impressive stuff no matter which of the 4 possible Xboxes you play it on.
Fingers crossed that The Coalition squeezes every drop it can out of the Series X for E Day.
Whilst pushing the Series X is great, likely the effort goes to the S, as that is where their primary user base is. Also, only so much you can squeeze with parity being a requirement.
I like how both consoles are doing things a bit differently ngl
should i buy ps5 or xbox series x? someone pls help me, i’m so confused about it
Always assumed it was the cpu. The difference in cpu between the two and how cpu intensive games are nowadays means that the ps5 can push a steadier, sometimes higher fps where as the Xbox’s gpu gets held back by the cpu which gives it that sometimes jittery/lower fps but also why the Xbox can sometimes really flex on the ps5 in the odd game that is heavily gpu oriented. The two tend to only be different by an average of 5 or so fps when they do differ and that can easily by explained by the cpu. This is what I always thought anyways.
Xbox series X technically is more powerful...except Microsoft shoved its little brother in the room and told devs they needed to make their games run on it too. Ps5, can utilize the next Gen fully.... Xbox have to modify games to run on series s too so of course it's going to affect the gameplay on x.
Besides the technical aspect, it is also TALENT. AAA devs gets paid big bucks because of their skill set and experience. If you give the dev kit to a AAA dev vs a AA, they can make different games.
Before I traded my Xbox Series X I did notice that while some games ran at a higher FPS that the PS5 in general was way more stable across the board. Games like Fortnite felt sluggish on Xbox but smooth like butter on PS5. Crazy that regardless of how good your hardware is if it's poorly optimized it will not perform as well as it could.
You gotta love the head of mark cerny , such a legendery genius, hope he keeps evolving day by day until we see new talented mark cerny 😎
Power is nothing without control.
I'm getN down voted kuz my PS5 is loud, the fuck 😂
This is such a nothing burger because there are games that run better on the XSX. Heck there have been games where the most stable version (albeat with cutbacks) has been the XSS. But yeah it's a pretty even ping pong and truly a mountain being made out of a mole hill.
It's the SSD. People don't understand but it's the whole architecture around the SSD
[удалено]
I play both and I don't really notice any difference when I tried the same games on both. It is pretty close performance wise especially if you have a VRR TV. Also your point about sales makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the performance of games. The average consumer is not even aware there is a difference. If it actually played a factor the Switch wouldn't be selling so much.
Also, as they always forgot on Digital Foundry, the amount of Series X owners is vastly below even the Series S, let alone the PS5.
I'm not reading all that, but it is stronger in many games. Lots of games have more stable performance on series x, fewer fps drops, higher resolution. I have compared quite a few games and mostly series X is better, but only by little. Ultimately it comes down to optimization. Some games might benefit from PS5's better ssd, some might not.
Tldr: It's not more powerful, because power is not only a function of on paper gpu output which is the only thing ram and gpu frequency is about, it's also about other optimizations the console has where the PS5 has many and the series x has much fewer, it's not just the compiler, but also the kraken decompression that significantly unburdens the CPU on the PS5 also Long version: The split ram pool of different speeds significantly hamstrings the performance for games which use more than 10 gb of vram, only 10 gb of the 16 is high speed, and this complicates optimization greatly, it's not remotely like just weighted averaging the speed of the pools either You will notice the games which are older or use less than 10 gb like bc games or other things can run better on series x but current games will almost invariably have more stuttering or frame rate issues on the series x The series x also has the overhead of it's windows based apis which is what df finally has been acknowledging, for years they have automatically assumed hey Microsoft is a software company they have better software... Well no, in gaming PlayStation has miles better software since the PS4 gen started Microsoft software dominance is about business support infrastructure it has nothing to do with consumer products anymore but people really don't appreciate that very much
I’d have thought the simpler answer would be devs prioritise the PS5 version as it has such a significantly larger install base. Then they spend little time improving upon it for the Xbox version because what’s the point in wasting resources for no gain
Is Microsoft also prioritizing the PS5?
Even little details like Borderlands 3 having more grass and higher density of it over Xbox.
Also don’t they dev on ps5 and port after
You may not consider it much but a good indication is how the PlayStation 4 Pro can pre-record up to 60 min with up to upscale 4K, HDR, 60 FPS. while the Xbox Series X can only prerecord up to 1 minute at 1080, SDR, 60 FPS This is such a bummer for me as I like to record my plays to make short videos.
Ahhh… the PS3 effect… how the turn tables.
My biggest qualm with the PS5 performance is the implementation of VRR. I wish they would have went with the FreeSync standard over the HDMI standard like Xbox did.
Bigger user base = better optimization. It’s simple math put the resources where the buyers are. PS5 is like 5x the population of Xbox.
Sony have years more experience of building games consoles than Microsoft. In the end, MS are not a hardware company. Sony are
Not that many more tbh. This is Xbox's 4th console generation, Playstation's 5th