Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2022] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]

In what world does not being able to run games at native 4k/60fps mean "not being fast enough"? Do you consider current generation consoles to have sufficient performance? Remind me how many games run at native 4k/60fps again?

And having to resort to 4K DLSS Quality makes a game unplayable in your estimation?

So having to use DLSS Balanced at 1440p/60fps = unplayable to you?

But why the fixation on the RTX3090? A 3080 would be around 2.6x faster than the PS5 in RT enabled games. A 3070 would be around 2x faster. How much faster where the 780 or the 770 over the PS4? According to TPU 1.92x and 1.63x faster respectively.

I think you took my quote a little out of context there. I was simply referencing your original argument that PC gamers are expecting too much performance advantage this generation because they where expecting a performance advantage similar to last generation which you argue was greater in GPU terms, and I argue was not.

 

I would say using SLI is fair as the price of multiple GPUs then was cheaper than a single GPU now. At PS4 launch, a 780ti was 2.5x faster on average over a wealth of games covering a myriad of scenarios. At PS5 launch a 3090 is 2x faster using the same criteria and 3x faster if you limit the comparison to specific implementations of specific effects. That is not the same.

 

Given the example given of dual Radeon 7950's, I think the MSRP on most of those was about $500. So 2 of them was about a 1000, which would put you at about an RTX 3080 right now, unless you adjust for inflation. In which case, are we normalizing to an average inflation rate, or something like the price of gasoline, or the price of anything at Dollar Tree.

 

Even larger difference when calculating in reconstruction tech (dlss).
Why would tesselation, streaming etc not matter anymore btw?

I take you skip consoles this gen?

 

The obsolescence of hardware in consoles does not depend on the situation on the PC market, but on the stage of development of graphics technologies.
During the launch of PS4, graphics technologies were already ready to go significantly ahead, but they encountered an obstacle in the form of consoles hardware and rolled back.
Now the situation is reversed. Graphics engines are still only in the process of development and optimization for RT, MS, SSD and so on.

And for the record: not a single natively developed game has been released under RT yet.

 

I’m not sure what you’re asking WRT streaming and tessellation. Reconstruction is not an apples to apples comparison.

7950 launched January 2012 for 450. In July it dropped to 400. By the time PS4 launched it was sub 300. 10 months after PS4 a 980 was 550 offering 2.7x the performance across the board.

 

Neither is SLI because it was widely understood to introduce frame pacing issues.

The discussion here was about how well console GPUs are aging this gen vs last gen relative to their PC counterparts.

If you're arguing they're aging better this generation but have to caveat that with a. Only when current gen PC GPU's aren't being fully utilised (RT and ML) and b. Only when comparing to 2x GPU's in SLI last generation, then I don't see that as a particularly strong position.

But hey, if that's the position you want to take, then yes, I concede that if you take only scenarios where current generation PC GPUs aren't fully utilised and compare that to 2, 3 or 4 GPUs running in SLI last generation then yes indeed, the performance delta to consoles is much smaller this generation for the moment.

That said, in a couple of years even those caveats won't help because SLI became next to useless later in the PS4 generations life (meaning performance effectively went down from the perspective of your argument) around Turing launch, while I expect some form of RT (which includes hardware Lumen) will be the default in most big games within the next couple of years.

 

I think last gen consoles were in a worse position even without SLI. SLI just makes it a complete non comparison. Getting into what constitutes full GPU usage is a very grey area. Last gen PC GPUs had plenty of features that saw little to no use. If they were performance advantages would have increased considerably. By this point into the generation a 980ti was just under 3.5x faster than a PS5 for 650 across the board. Without games using any of the features it offered over consoles. It actually offered less capability than the consoles due to DX11 not exposing much.

 

The 980ti was still a couple of months away at this point in the previous generation. If you want to compare to that then we should probably be comparing to the 40x0 PC generation GPUs due in a few months. And according to TPU it was no more that 3x faster (using the 7850 comparison point) than the PS4. So right where the 3090 was over 18 months ago in RT enabled games.

Comparing unexposed hardware features of Maxwell to RT which is used today in multiple games is disingenuous. There are games on the market right now, and many more coming where the 3090 will see a real world 3x performance increase over the PS5. That is more than you could have ever achieved with the time equivalent single GPUs of the previous generation (780Ti and 980) over the PS4. And that gap is about to get much wider within 7 months.

 

We are 1 month away from when 980ti would have launched. It certainly isn’t a guarantee that we will see the 4000 series GPUs this year. Techpowerup 980ti launch review.



A 7850 would be at 29%. That puts 980ti at 3.37x faster. There were instances of games using some Maxwell features. HFTS, VXAO etc. If consoles tried to run them performance differences would be far greater than 3.37x. There are more games using RT than Maxwell features for sure, but not all RT games scale performance up to that 3x number. And if history is any indication, those will not become the majority of games released. How many non Nvidia sponsored titles make heavy enough use of RT to cripple AMD GPUs?

 

I’m not sure it’ll happen this generation. Will wait to see what Avatar and the next Metro game do on consoles but there may not be enough raw HW performance on the consoles to make RT a baseline requirement. Someone mentioned earlier that RT democratizes high quality lighting. That is so true and the greatest impact will be seen for smaller PC devs who no longer need to spend an inordinate amount of time and money baking light assets.

Honestly we have so many examples now of RT significantly improving IQ that you can safely ignore the “RT doesn’t matter” crowd. The problem is that there are also many examples of RT not significantly improving IQ that those folks can use to justify their position. Essentially cherry picking the worst examples. Doesn’t really matter though as RT is obviously here to stay and will (soonish) be as omnipresent as triangle rasterization is today. Why would anyone choose to do non-RT reflections, shadows or GI on PS6? They won’t.

@Silent_Buddha if your target is 1% lows above 120fps you will probably never see RT your lifetime

 

How do you determine whether a game is sponsored vs “neutral”? I wish more games had the option for crippling RT effects so that they actually scale on next generation hardware. Barely noticeable IQ improvements will still be barely noticeable on future hardware.

 

Ok it looks like Geforce.com no longer has a list of directly sponsored titles so its harder to differentiate. Is the Nvidia splash logo still a thing only in games they helped on?

 

Just read the GPU Ray Tracing Performance topic, any title that uses RT to do a single effect properly will cripple AMD GPUs significantly. AMD GPUs get a pass only when they half ass the RT implementation to a very low resolution or do the majority of the implementation in screen space.

 

Metro EE doesn't cripple AMD GPUs and IMO is still one of the best RT use cases.

 

It cripples them HARD, a 3090 is 2X the performance of a 6900XT in Metro.

 

Metro EE runs very well on every DXR capable GPU.

I still think it's one of the best showing of Raytracing to date, not only because the GI looks fantastic but also because it's so performant.

I still wish UE5's Lumen would be closer to the incredible solution 4A Games built here.

Similar to many other people, I'm afraid running Lumen at 60 FPS is next to impossible, given even that little multiplayer demo (Lyra is it called I believe) is very heavy.

 

https://www.computerbase.de/thema/grafikkarte/rangliste/

Metro does not cripple AMD GPUs.

 

I guess you are going to be out of luck this gen then, if UE5 demos are any indications, then many games will rely on TSR to deliver their next gen visuals. And TSR is often inferior to DLSS. Console gaming is out of luck for you too, as upscaling is prevalent there in almost EVERY title, with far inferior results to DLSS.

Please don't use a single link vs the many links I provided for your above. If you test a realtively light and small area in Metro as Computerbase did then AMD GPUs do fine, if you test any area with heavy use of RT GI and reflections (as done by other smart sites) then they are crippled hard.

 

Some more Metro EE tests for you.