snc
Veteran
Comparing to pc its more compettetive than ps4 was (slow cpu, slow disk, medium gpu, very good amount of ram) now is good cpu, good gpu, very good disk and medium amount of ram
Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2020-2021] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
- Status
PS5 compares best to the lowest AMD and NV have to offer right now. thats called lowest tier, as compared to PS4 which had a upper mid tier GCN gpu (7870 closest). In ram, its what a 6800 sports alone, outside of system ram which usually is atleast 16GB these days, but seeing a 6800 class gpu is rather higher end, 32GB isnt all that strange. CPU wise its better then last generation for sure, but still a generation behind, (zen2 opposed to Zen3), rather much lower clocked and cut cache amounts. A mid end CPU i would say.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Definitely, but that's mostly because DIY PC component prices are though the roof nowadays.
It's worth noting that you can't get an exact settings match between PS5 and PC. The PC has no LOD settings and is set to the equivalent of PS5's 4K mode. PS5's 120Hz mode uses a lower LOD setting in addition to shadows being lower quality than the PC's low mode (you can see that very clearly in NXG's shadow comparison) and a reduced tessellation effect. There's probably more but the upshot of it is that the PS5 is running with lower settings in quite a few areas than the PC it's compared to so direct performance comparisons can't be made.
Also the PS5 is still using DRS at 120hz mode which according to VG Tech can drop as low as 1664x936, so that would help keep PS5's performance up in the most demanding scenes meaning the 20% peak gap could be happening at a lower resolution as well.
A very slow one though by NVMe standards. i.e. only 2GB/s. If the PS5 with it's 5.5GB/s drive can't double that there would be a problem! That said I wouldn't expect the PC's load times to scale perfectly in line with NVMe speed due to bottlenecks elsewhere in the IO stack. Only 5 weeks left until Microsoft tell us more about Direct Storage!
It's probably a stretch to suggest the PS5 CPU would perform as low as a 1700x on the PC, especially when taking into account the higher API and driver overhead on the PC. If you check out the benchmarks below you'll see that the low of 109fps is the same when the RTX3070 is running at either 1080p or 1440p. That strongly suggests a CPU limitation. Granted they're using an old 6 core Haswell but that would still stand up reasonably well to a 2700x as long as the game isn't heavily leaning on all 8 cores, so it's not that unrealistic to expect the PC might be being bottlenecked at times by the 2700x here. NXG does say that the average performance is only 14% different while the low to lows are 20% which might suggest more than just a GPU bottleneck at those low points.
And 14% faster than a 2070S on average puts you around 2080S level performance but with lower settings and possibly lower resolution too. That sounds about right for a game that heavily favours AMD over Nvidia hardware.
https://www.game-debate.com/news/30186/nioh-2-pc-performance-report-graphics-card-benchmarks
snc
Veteran
ps4 is not comparable to 7870but to 7850 which wasnt top amd card even in 2012 while ps5 gpu is comparable to amd top 2019 5700xt, also both ps5 and xsx push the new borders in terms of power consumption and console size, they are almost max what console could look using amd parts in 2020 while in 2013 specs where rather dissapoitment
Its actually closer to a 7870 in performance, the PS4 it is. Which was atleast a mid tier GPU in 2012/2013 (got replaced by a R270??) and no missing important features like RT is today (or even DLSS).
5700XT is close to what a 6700 or a 3060 is in normal rendering, which is the lowest AMD and NV have to offer now.
2013 consoles had the ram advantage and core count advantage aswell (this did play a role in ports etc).
If the 2013 consoles where a dissapointment, then sure the 2020 ones are. The GPU is still the most important factor for gaming, and here they are the lowest tier as compared to 2020 parts, and compared to NV, subpar RT performance and no DLSS equal tech (as of yet, and if it will come, not on-par like RT).
CPU wise its in better standing as the 2013 ones, but still mid-tier of whats available to PC gaming setups. As far as ram quantity goes, this time around consoles sport 16GB total for the entire system, whereas a higher end GPU has that amount or more just for the GPU/VRAM, again no sharing of bandwith either.
A low-end GPU by 2020 nv/amd products, not even counting RT or reconstruction, mid tier CPU with some cutbacks, and a ram size that matches what a single 6800 sports enterily for itself. Not even discussing missing features like IC and other RDNA2 stuff.
Its the SSD thats 'highend', but then were looking at compression aswell. Before compression, were at 7gb/s for high end nvme drives for pc, with DS/RTX IO, were looking at numbers the PS5 wont touch.
'Dissapointment' is something misplaced anyway in a box costing 400 dollars. No matter what, its always going to be a dissapointment if you compare to gaming pc's (costing much more to start with and not hampered by temps, form factor, power consumption, development time etc etc).
snc
Veteran
1.84tf ps4 gpu is for sure closer to 1.76tf 7850 than to 2.5tf 7870
again, in 2011 amd had 7970 around 1.4x faster than 7850/ps4, 2 years before ps4, in 2019, one year before ps5 amd had 0 cards faster than ps5 gpu and 0 with rt support1.84tf ps4 gpu is for sure closer to 1.76tf 7850 than to 2.5tf 7870
It doesnt really matter what was available one year before. What matters is whats available now, and then were looking at the lowest avaible from NV and AMD matching the PS5s GPU not talking RT and reconstruction. At the time of PS4s launch, there actually where slower products available from AMD for example then what was in the PS4.
Good to see TF's matter again though
snc
Veteran
So if only matters whats available now, fastest available card rtx3090 is around 2x faster than 5700xt/ps5 gpu, 780ti in 2014 was almos 3x faster (2.85x according to techpowerup) in 2014 than 7850/ps4, telling its same story as in 2013 is just ignoring factsIt doesnt really matter what was available one year before. What matters is whats available now, and then were looking at the lowest avaible from NV and AMD matching the PS5s GPU not talking RT and reconstruction. At the time of PS4s launch, there actually where slower products available from AMD for example then what was in the PS4.
Good to see TF's matter again though
snc
Veteran
yeah and taking into account dynamic resolutin in 1200-1600p without rt and advantage is maybe 1.5x also game like new Ratchet using fully ps5 io arch. is not possible on most pc's ;d we can selective trolling all day
Point is previous generations we’ve had the PC crowd saying ‘build a Xx console beater for a similar price’ this time you simply can’t...the GPU alone is the cost of a whole console (and 3000 range offer amazing VFM).
So the extras needed; super fast SSD, RAM, mobo, case, PSU, O/S and CPU - build as cheap as you like you’re going to be spending near double what the PS5 costs.
So the extras needed; super fast SSD, RAM, mobo, case, PSU, O/S and CPU - build as cheap as you like you’re going to be spending near double what the PS5 costs.
You're also building something that does much more than just game.
You're also building something that will hold higher resale value for far longer. I can sell my 2080ti for more now than what I payed for it at launch.... Yes... that's pretty sad.. but since PCs are so forward and backward compatible.. getting rid of the old completely and putting that money towards new components significantly lowers the outright cost of "upgrading". Yes, you can trade in you console towards a new one.. but generally you're going to get a small fraction of what you paid for it.
Anyway... the people that are willing to drop big money on a good PC.. likely don't give a damn about the fact that you can get a $500 console with comparable visuals.
That and a 3060(ti) or 6700xt system will provide better graphics/performance, if paired with decent cpu etc.
In case of the nv gpu, youl get the RT advantage in any game and performance in special when using dlss.
PS5 sits around 6700 vanilla or a 3060 non ti, the lowest amd and nv have to offer. If TF still matter like it apperantly does for 2013 consoles, almost 3x diff vs a 3090.
Count in RT and their even more behind.
What ive seen from ratchet wasnt so much more impressive over SC's hyper travel speeds. PS5 nvme is fast, but on paper already outclassed.
In case of the nv gpu, youl get the RT advantage in any game and performance in special when using dlss.
PS5 sits around 6700 vanilla or a 3060 non ti, the lowest amd and nv have to offer. If TF still matter like it apperantly does for 2013 consoles, almost 3x diff vs a 3090.
Count in RT and their even more behind.
What ive seen from ratchet wasnt so much more impressive over SC's hyper travel speeds. PS5 nvme is fast, but on paper already outclassed.
snc
Veteran
Performance matter and teraflops are quite good metrics of performance if we compare same arch. but will end this discussion here as I think is waste of time
These PC vs console value debates are a rabbit hole filled with mirrors and straw men. Any comparison between hardware is valid enough if it demonstrates an experience you can expect on that platform with that software. Also, any commentary about the price of GPUs on the secondary market I've seen mostly ignore the cost of a PS5/Series on the secondary market.
Honestly, the amount of 60fps+ games this generation is great, from my perspective. That, and texture filtering is also much better so far. Low frame rates and poor texture filtering have been my main complaints with console games last generation. I'm glad we are where we are on that front.
Honestly, the amount of 60fps+ games this generation is great, from my perspective. That, and texture filtering is also much better so far. Low frame rates and poor texture filtering have been my main complaints with console games last generation. I'm glad we are where we are on that front.
This site has the wrong information, this is the print of the xbox dash with 28GB used by the game.
Code:
https://i.imgur.com/o9a1izs.jpgAttachments
No. That site is correct.
Here is the manage game screen for the game on an actual Series X. It is only 22 GB.
The download screen shows 22.21 GB for more exact filesize.
And the store description page shows 22.08 GB:
@Deto , I did some more digging on Crash 4, and there is a cosmetic skin addon "Totally Tubular Skins" that takes up another 6 GBs if you purchased them and installed.
The game Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time is only 22.21 GB. That site seems to be comparing base versions of the game without the cosmetic addon.
The game Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time is only 22.21 GB. That site seems to be comparing base versions of the game without the cosmetic addon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
