A Generational Leap in Graphics [2020] *Spawn*

Games have different bottlenecks and perform different when put on a newer architecture such as PS5/XSX. Not sure what is so shocking about it. Also, we have seen more than a hand of full games on XBO X performing not only better, but beyond 2x rendered pixels compared to PS4 PRO. So 8x or whatever is not that far fetched really!

 

Ah my bad, I had the PS4 Pro version on my brain as that's what I was coming from and transposed that over PS4.

 

....yes, I agree that a completely different and much older game is less impressive? I mean what is the point of this reply? You do realize that you don't have to respond to every single post in a thread since you last visited it, right?

 

I agree with this, although I think DLSS bucks this trend is a pretty disruptive way.

I don't agree with this though. CB2077 is hugely heavy on hardware, yes. But IMO the visuals warrant the performance cost.

 

If games with notably better visuals on hardware over 3x weaker become the norm are they really warranted? Going back to Crysis it’s important to remember that the consoles never came close to matching it, much less surpassing it.

 

Not saying it doesn’t. Just saying that it seems CDR addressed CP77 needs by simply throwing a ton of Tflops at it.

It’s understandable given we are just at the beginning of a new gen, but I don’t think CP77 like IQ is going to take a 3090 with DLSS set to quality in the future.

 

as for CP2077, this is how a console from 7 years ago and over 17 times weaker* handles it:



*at least going by Nvidias' (fake PR) specs

 

Factoring in DLSS I’d say a 3090 is probably 35-40x more capable than a base PS4. IMO Cyberpunk is a very inefficient use of processing power relative to its visual output.

 

With all of the praise and hyperbole going around, the base 2013 PS4 version is extremely, extremely underrated.

with how impressed people are that the switch can run Witcher 3, or wolfenstein, PS4 running Cyberpunk 2077 is really the equivalent of the PSVita running Crysis

 

Look, im not saying 16GB is paltry, that its not enough to drop some jaws down the line. What i mean is that in quantity, its less of a increase for memory then before. The SSD is going to mitigate some of it, but not all. Ram management is going to be the key there indeed.

The jump in performance for the GPU is absolutely not the same as before. its five times less in pure metrics. Half that as we went from PS3 to PS4. Architectural improvements happen all the time for every generational shift. It could be argued that going from G70 to GCN1.1 was the larger improvement over going from GCN to RDNA2. For that we need someones input but atleast it can be said architectural improvements or IPC is going to account for both shifts.

CPU wise, even all the credit cell got on some forums and articles, was actually about four times weaker then the 8 core jaguar in the PS4. Thats aside from a very bad vs a much better efficiency. The jaguars got alot of flak, and compared to PC cpus they where low end, but compared to what was in the PS3 (cell) it actually was a great improvemet across the board for gaming related tasks. While the Zen2 cpu is a much needed leap, its not directly more of a leap then going from Cell>jaguar.

Yes the coprocessor is going to offload IO tasks, but remember that the PS4 didnt really need one as games didnt rely heavlily on fast loading.
The leap for memory bandwith is not 'abit less', its alot less. The GPU in the PS3 basically had to part with about 20gb/s for its 256mb allocated to vram. That went all the way to 176gb/s for the PS4. RDNA2 needs less BW then GCN, but whos to say bandwith efficieny wasnt improved going from G70 to GCN? Nothing happened in those 8 years of development?
I'd say that even there the difference is quite large, dGPU variants have infinity cache for a reason, or in Amperes case, closing in to 900gb/s of raw BW.

Thing is, scaling has improved alot, and cross-gen sure has been the focus now. Still, i see SF and 1886 as bigger leaps to the previous best graphics then what DS and rift apart do. But then we go again in this territory where some thing GTA3 looks better then 4 etc

Hm, seems like a disadvantage to the PS4 then, by using a PC path on the console? Anyway, scaling has come long ways since then, and the focus on cross gen has put much more optimization towards that im sure.

Its an amazing title graphically, and its up there along others. But its not that leap shadowfall brought us. I mean, its something DF has shared the same opinion on. Generational shifts have decreased since the PS2, its no secret

Then you'd need to compare 2015/2016 PS4 games to 2022/2023 PS5 games or something, not launch ones like shadowfall. Now i say DS and SF because they both are launch titles and basically what we got for PS5.
Time will tell if we see the same leap as PS2 to PS3, and PS3 to PS4. Im still saying leaps have gotten smaller, its a general thing basically everyone knows.

The console advantage right now is direct storage not being ready yet on pc. Whatever that advantage is anyway, PCIE4 nvme setups load games almost as quick? Have to do some side by side testing with the same games.

 

The quality of graphics at any given time are relative the period they're released in. We're barely scratching the surface of what DX12U class architectures are capable of so at this point, very early on in the optimisation cycle I'd say that yes they are worth it (although see my response below for further context on this). As time goes on developers will naturally learn more about the new hardware capabilities and develop better ways to use the available power and features which will result in better looking games, as is the case every console generation. However for where we are right now in the optimisation cycle I'd say that CB2077's visuals warrant their high performance cost vs other games currently available.

Actually I do agree with you. My earlier statements about the graphics being worth the performance cost weren't fully thought through and thinking about it more, I was really talking of the non-RT version of the game (as that's what I'm playing) when I made them. The requirements of those graphics seem quite in line with the result IMO compared with other games available at the moment in my own experience. Adding RT seems to give significant additional benefits but yes, an argument can certainly be made that the extra graphical fidelity isn't worth losing 2/3rds of your performance, and there will be games later this generation which use that power for more visual impact.

Despite YT compression underselling the vast difference in image quality and framerate between 4K 40fps+ and 720p 20fps+, I think the CB comparison holds up very well to the other 2 videos. The Crysis difference is probably bigger, but the Crysis 3 difference is smaller IMO. Just look at the scene from 7:14 for a example in the CB comparison. That scene gets a few seconds in the video but could represent hours of gameplay, both in car and on foot within the game, and that's a very clear generational difference between the two platforms. Here it is for reference:

This is silly. I assume you're referring to the available TFLOPS, but there is nothing fake or PR about what Nvidia rates the Ampere GPU's at. It's a simple factual reporting of the architectures raw float shader throughput that is easily testable. If you're concluding that Nvidia is lying about it's FLOPS because there isn't a real world 17x difference between the 3080 and PS4 (when not using RT or DLSS) then that simply highlights a lack of understanding of the relevance of FLOPS in the overall system architecture context.

 

I agree up to a point. I'd say the performance gap between a 3090+DLSS and a PS5 is clearly bigger than G80 and the PS3. You can look at any gen 7 console title throughout their lifetime and not a single one ever came close to matching Crysis. 7 years of developer improvement and nothing came close. Similar to DX12U being new, there were several new paradigms of the time. Learning them improved things dramatically, but not nearly enough to close the gap. GPU wise Crysis performance was justified. Comparing the best looking games on a base PS4 to Cyberpunk on a 3090 and there is just no way the visuals aren't punching well below their weight with the 35-40x more GPU capability available.

 

G70 is based on the CineFX architecture and had so many problems with pipeline bubbles. And unlike G7x is hasnt even twice the pixel shader output per pipeline. GCN 1.1 is so much better that alone the architecture improvements are one the same level as the raw compute performance improvement from PS4 -> PS5.

 

Im talking metrics because thats what we do every generation. Even MS and Sony themselfs did so (four times the CPU, twice the GPU power of the OneX etc). On a forum like this, there will be metrics tossed around.
I agree on real world performance, but pushing 'between 5 to 8 times more pixels' doesnt really tell the whole story either. It doesnt mean flat out that theres a 8x improvement.

Aside from that, when a new generation of consoles arrive, usually, its the native games that really show off the capabilities, where graphical fidelity is upped. Shadowfall did just that, and so does Demon souls, but the latter didnt show a huge a leap as SF did.

What has a 1080Ti vs 2070S to do with what i said? Your talking about architectural improvements there, ofcourse TF for TF, Turing is more efficient then Pascal, it should be. I have no clue why you even need to start about that.
Going from PS3 to PS4, or G70 to GCN, there where architectural improvements too. TF for TF, the PS4's has an advantage there aswell.
Aside from that, keep things civil. You think the leap is as large as goig from PS3 to 4. I think its not. Its a agree and disagreement, thats how forums work.

Jaguar is weak, i have never said it was a strong CPU for the time. What i am saying is that the performance relative to Cell vs the jaguar wasnt all that bad. It was a four time increase, not talking effeciency. Which means, the leap in CPU going from PS4 to 5 isnt that much different, despite the CPU being much better then the jaguar. You can, perhaps, blame the Cell for that.

Lol. atleast you keep it funny with the 'no chance for you' Anyway, NV had an advantage you say over amd with G70? Is that what you mean? Anyway, i seriously doubt that, going from a Nvidia G70 (7800GT derative) to a AMD GCN 7870 derative, the memory efficiency wasnt improved at all, or even behind.

DF is not an absolute value no, why would it be? They are though, very highly regarded here. The work on Demon souls began three years ago, ye, i can believe that. But the same would go for Shadowfall, i doubt they made that game in half a year. The development time probably was quit close to that three year development time you talk about.

GG wasnt back then what they are today either. Also, an advantage for PS4 to 5 is that we stay on the same AMD/X86 platform, whereas for PS3 to PS4, from NV to amd and Cell to out-order X86.

Yea, can agree on that, its up there with those (demon souls). Still, i'd rate CP2077 at 1 and can see why alex and john did.

Sure about that? Uncharted 3 did look very nice graphically. Larger gap then DS to CP2077 pc perhaps, but dont forget that leaps have gotten smaller on pc too, but to a much lesser degree (hardware wise). Blame power usage id say.

 

Dark Souls 3 to Demon's Souls Remake.

 

Yes. The same for G70 to GCN1, you cant compare them TF for TF either. Fact remains that in TF metrics alone, the improvement was 10 times the increase, as opposed to 5 what we got now. Thats pure metrics. Counting in going from G70 arch to GCN1.1 arch and the improvement is even larger then what we see from GCN to RDNA. If the PS5 GPU is 7 times more powerfull then the PS4s, the PS4s gpu was close to 20 times more powerfull. Architectural changes account for both.
And no, basing performance increases purely based on resolution is faulty to begin with. In special considering last gen games.

Maybe use common sense.

Still doesnt change on what we got as the best visuals possible on PS5 at launch vs the PS4 at launch. No matter what, if the leap was as big as Chris1515 promises, we sure should have seen it in a game natively designed around the PS5 (bluepoint claims so). In special if the development time was three years.

 

Sorry I didn't understand. What was Chris' promise? I just came into the thread reading the title then replying.