I'm sure it has something akin to Sampler Feedback, but not Sampler Feedback Streaming.
It depends on how hardware support for ML, VRS, Mesh Shaders and SFS will affect the difference in performance between consoles. And on how multiplatform developers will use it.
lmao, its from xbox discord and has nothing to do with truth ;dIt depends on how hardware support for ML, VRS, Mesh Shaders and SFS will affect the difference in performance between consoles. And on how multiplatform developers will use it.
Also, we do not know how much the ps5 GPU frequency drops when the CPU is used at full throttle. And how multiplatform developers will use Smart Shift.
According to Mark Cerny, they could not get the GPU to run stable at 2.0 Ghz and the CPU at 3.0 Ghz at the same time.
+ There was a questionable leak, which may well be close to the truth:
If that is correct then I don't even want to know what XSX actual clock speed since its performance is similar to PS5. Yes, XSX clock is fixed, thus making that post questionable.It depends on how hardware support for ML, VRS, Mesh Shaders and SFS will affect the difference in performance between consoles. And on how multiplatform developers will use it.
Also, we do not know how much the ps5 GPU frequency drops when the CPU is used at full throttle. And how multiplatform developers will use Smart Shift.
According to Mark Cerny, they could not get the GPU to run stable at 2.0 Ghz and the CPU at 3.0 Ghz at the same time.
+ There was a questionable leak, which may well be close to the truth:
Could you dig up where you heard that?
It can downclock. But only does so when there is nothing happening to save on power.
Sry, it is not exact enough. Smartshift is there to reduce the power envelope of one component and deliver the power to the other. So the soc has more or less a stable power envelope. Only if both would be idle most of the time, power will be saved. This is also what we've seen so far in power-consumption tests. PS5 is more or less stable in the ~200W area while xbox series x in a 150-175W area but it can go up to over 200W (I think gears was one of those games).
That's not true either. In gameplay it's usually fluctuating from 175-195W. The 200W figure is reached in specific scenes, mostly in cutscenes or in one specific spot of the map.
«Running a GPU at 2 GHz was looking like an unreachable target with the old fixed frequency strategy.»
Because they have different architectures, designs and cooling systems.
For most pastgen or crossgen games the 2.2 Ghz GPU and 2.0 Ghz CPU (with multithreading) mode should be enough to double the frame rate (and improve the graphics).
There it is. We know (from a guy who actually put that scene in his profiler) that Control photo mode is very highly GPU limited, like almost all scenes the PS5 is known to reach its max power consumption (cutscenes).
Ok, I was exactly not exact enough
. Sure the PS5 can have a lower power consumption, if the CPU & GPU are limited e.g. by FPS. Than those components are idling around and need less power. E.g. Control is a last-gen game. Yes it has now a RT implementation, but the actual "rasterizer" stuff didn't receive much of an update. Therefore it is limited to 30fps (except for photo mode, where we than can see what the hardware is capable of in that game).
It won't change the results. AFAIK most max power consumption measures (~205W) have being done at locked 60fps and 30fps (in Miles Morales cutscenes). It's actually not only about the framerate outputted to the screen. In most cases that max power consumption is about what is being (uselessly) rendered by the GPU.Ok, I was exactly not exact enough
Optimal case for future console games would be open FPS (above 60) + VRR (if VRR is available at some point).
