Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2023] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]

[Seanspeed]

IN R&C the two world are the same each time you use a crystal for example. Here I don't know how they will manage this but if they let the two spiderman being in two random place they can't preload a bit of data like in R&C.

There will likely be sort of pre-setup locations and the camera can keep its view up higher or whatever so that it's not having to draw in a full, complex scene right away. I dont think it's gonna be a case of being able to leave a character and then return to it at exactly the same location and view you left it with.

There might also be a pause during the 'change character' prompt where the system can start preempting the switch.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In performance mode on 1.09 the average frame rate stat for PS5 and Xbox Series X is similar. However, the performance between these two consoles varies per scene, with PS5 having a higher frame rate in some scenes and Xbox Series X having a higher frame rate in other scenes.

It's almost like different parts of the game stress different parts of the hardware. And it's almost like we have consoles that are very similar but with different hardware strengths and weaknesses versus the other.

Regards,
SB

 

[Karamazov]

i don't remember if it was in miles morales or spiderman remastered, but there was a scene where spiderman would go out of a building through a window, and there was a loading screen on PS4 and was instantaneous on PS5, can't find the video.

 

[Shortbread]

i don't remember if it was in miles morales or spiderman remastered, but there was a scene where spiderman would go out of a building through a window, and there was a loading screen on PS4 and was instantaneous on PS5, can't find the video.

 

[Liandry]

Cell - 179.2 GFLOPS
RSX - 192 GFLOPS

Why Cell is 179.2? Should be ~200.

Why do you disagree? The strength of Cell relative to desktop CPUs was FP processing. GPUs were much faster in that area.

Exclusive games for PS3 was amazing in terms of graphics and same also in terms of physics, so that could mean what Cell wasn't so weak and useless.

Edit - the G92 based 8800 GTS was released a year later in December 2007.

My mistake. But then PS3 was quite powerfull at least one more year.

I dunno, the 7800 GTX 512 was a pretty potent card for the time and had more grunt in many respects than Xenos.

Yes, but in games that was not so. After some year or two 7800 was outdated and Xenos was capable of runing games with better and better graphics for years. Of course PC versions was ahead but still that difference wasn't so big. At least not so big as with X1 games. Also that wasn't only because of GPU, that was more related to what developer haven't made some a lot more detailed assets for PC versions because that wasn't profitable.

Then 2 months after the X360 launched, the Radeon X1900XTX released which was an absolute monster of a card that comfortably outclassed Xenos in pretty much every respect.

Again, where was 1900 after some year or two?

They called Xenos "the shader monster" but X1900XTX was pushing around twice the FLOPS in total (although only 25% in vertex shader limited scenarios).

Twice is like more that Nvidia 8800? Are you sure?

Mypoint in all this is about what Xbox 360 for launch time was a little bit more powerfull than top PC of that time and also had some features what was on PC in year or two. X1 and PS4 was 2-3 times behind top PC for time they released and had not any technical advantages. That's it. I don't say some consoles are better or worse. That is about pure performance and feature set.

 

[techuse]

Why Cell is 179.2? Should be ~200.

Exclusive games for PS3 was amazing in terms of graphics and same also in terms of physics, so that could mean what Cell wasn't so weak and useless.

My mistake. But then PS3 was quite powerfull at least one more year.

One of the SPUs in cell was disabled for yields in PS3.

Exclusive games did impressive things thanks to Cell, but nothing that rivaled titles like Crysis, World in Conflict, Company of heroes etc.

 

[Liandry]

One of the SPUs in cell was disabled for yields in PS3.

1 PPU 25 gflops and 7 SPUs 25 glops each, that is 200.

Exclusive games did impressive things thanks to Cell, but nothing that rivaled titles like Crysis, World in Conflict, Company of heroes etc.

That's arguable and also subjective. Crysis was great in some moments and wasn't in others. At least some moments was on par with console top games what were released years later. But that is also subjective.

 

[Dictator]

1 PPU 25 gflops and 7 SPUs 25 glops each, that is 200.

1 SPU is disabled for yields and 1 (working) SPU is used for security encoding.
6/8 on the die can be used for games.

 

[Karamazov]

you can't just add CPU+GPU flops like that i think, and these were peak theoric numbers, plus having 6 SPEs working together at the same time was quite an achievement.
RSX was a "last minute" addition because the original CELL only design would have been lacking.

 

[Nesh]

One of the SPUs in cell was disabled for yields in PS3.

Exclusive games did impressive things thanks to Cell, but nothing that rivaled titles like Crysis, World in Conflict, Company of heroes etc.

Certainly nothing could rival Crysis' vast super dense environment and physics driven world. That game was overkill for years to come. Its was a title that belonged to a generation ahead. But I checked the other two games you mentioned and I cant quite grasp what is remarkable about them.
Certainly the Uncharted series and God Of War punched above what was expected from the PS3 hardware and there was nothing comparable on PC, even though PCs where certainly more powerful.
I couldnt grasp how these studios pulled of those visuals.

 

[chris1515]

Certainly nothing could rival Crysis' vast super dense environment and physics driven world. That game was overkill for years to come. Its was a title that belonged to a generation ahead. But I checked the other two games you mentioned and I cant quite grasp what is remarkable about them.
Certainly the Uncharted series and God Of War punched above what was expected from the PS3 hardware and there was nothing comparable on PC, even though PCs where certainly more powerful.
I couldnt grasp how these studios pulled of those visuals.

It is simple games are beautiful most of the time because of arts.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

In my opinion X1 and PS4 was underpowered for release date. XSX ans PS5 also was underpowered for release date but not so much. Xbox 360 for release date was more powerful than any PC that time with single video card. PS3 wasn't far beyond strongest PC when was released. CPU was 50 gflops at best and Nvidia 8800 was 400 gflops, PS3 was 400 gflops for Cell + RSX.

I said this on Day one. The bigger problem is that AMD is behind the curve compared to Nvidia and design gets more and more expensive as the generation goes by. If I were Sony/MS, I would skip a mid-gen console and just end this gen a little early.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Certainly nothing could rival Crysis' vast super dense environment and physics driven world. That game was overkill for years to come. Its was a title that belonged to a generation ahead. But I checked the other two games you mentioned and I cant quite grasp what is remarkable about them.
Certainly the Uncharted series and God Of War punched above what was expected from the PS3 hardware and there was nothing comparable on PC, even though PCs where certainly more powerful.
I couldnt grasp how these studios pulled of those visuals.

That's quite simply because great visuals doesn't mean better technology. ND has an incredibly talented team for creation. They've never been a company that pushes technology forward in the console world. What 3rd party developers should do is get more talented staff to compete along with the advances that Nvidia pushes out to PC gamers.

 

[Nesh]

That's quite simply because great visuals doesn't mean better technology. ND has an incredibly talented team for creation. They've never been a company that pushes technology forward in the console world. What 3rd party developers should do is get more talented staff to compete along with the advances that Nvidia pushes out to PC gamers.

I agree with you regarding their creative talent. But I think Sony's studios excel in both artistic and technical creativity and competence. They really do know how to take advantage of the hardware resources and solve complex math problems.
Their presentations cover a lot of technical analysis, about their engine and how they tapped into the hardware's architecture to achieve the result. It goes beyond the amazing artists.
And I think this is the golden combination that Sony's studios have which manage to set new standards in game development beyond brute forcing assets. It is one of the reasons why their games feel dynamic and alive beyond the static.

Edit: I think powerful hardware is the trap PC and most multiplatform developers fall into. Since they have countless of configurations from low to high end, they are usually pushing the visuals by brute forcing the detail, since the raw power and the memory is more available. Sony's studios on the other hand are diving into the hardware because whats available in terms of raw power is less and standardized, they develop methods to achieve the result they want and to squeeze out what they want to do. That involves a lot of technical competence that needs to marry with the design and aesthetics that the team is visualising.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I said this on Day one. The bigger problem is that AMD is behind the curve compared to Nvidia and design gets more and more expensive as the generation goes by.

The real problem is outside of AMD's APU, if you're trying to hit a certain price point then there really are very limited alternative options. Intel + Nvidia? ARM and Nvidia? Would either have produced an overall better package technically at the same price point? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[pjbliverpool]

My mistake. But then PS3 was quite powerfull at least one more year.

Not sure what you're talking about here. The 8800GTX was the more powerful GPU of the two and it released in before (by a few days) the PS3 did. And it was a by far more powerful GPU than that in the PS3.

Yes, but in games that was not so.

I'm fairly sure that in the vast majority of DX9 era games released on both platforms, the 7800 GTX512 (or it's more modern and available equivalent the 7900GTX) was putting in at least as good a performance as the Xbox 360. Obviously once games started to lean more heavily on DX10 and unified shaders those old GPU's wouldn't keep up, but it was years before that started to happen in the PC space.

After some year or two 7800 was outdated and Xenos was capable of runing games with better and better graphics for years.

Give me some examples? Of course the 7800 series was outdated on the PC side by G80, but G80 outdated both consoles too. It outdated everything.

Again, where was 1900 after some year or two?

Literally obliterating either consoles performance in virtually ever cross platform game for years. I remember this quite well. That card was a monster despite not having unified shaders. It could literally go head to head with the 7950GX2 in many games and could even give the 8800GTS a run for it's money. This is the 1950XTX but that was only a marginal upgrade over the original and this game is no exception:

Twice is like more that Nvidia 8800? Are you sure?

100% sure. The XTX was pushing 426 GFLOPS of combined pixel and vertex shader power to Xenos's 216 GFLOPS. The 8800GTX was 518 GFLOPS including the MUL but had many other advantages.

Mypoint in all this is about what Xbox 360 for launch time was a little bit more powerfull than top PC of that time and also had some features what was on PC in year or two. X1 and PS4 was 2-3 times behind top PC for time they released and had not any technical advantages. That's it. I don't say some consoles are better or worse. That is about pure performance and feature set.

I don't disagree with your core point that the PS4 generation launched in a worse position relative to PC's than the PS3 generation. That's a given. But in pure performance terms PC's were ahead of the PS3 from day 1 by a pretty significant margin. Compared to the Xbox 360 which was a spectacular console the picture is more muddied because in raw performance terms it was theoretically possible to build a single GPU PC at the time that would hold up very well for years against it (but not it's full life). And within 2 months you could build a PC that was definitely more capable for arguably the consoles full life. Then within 1 year the console was severely outdated by the first DX10 GPU, arguably more so than the PS4 was at launch vs the top end PC's of the time.

I do think the current gen is in a better position than the PS4 gen for the record though. Moreso at launch on the CPU and storage side than the GPU side though. However because the PS4 gen launched mid way through a GPU cycle (which it was already outdated by), the next gen of PC GPU's - Maxwell - arrived faster than this console generations 2nd gen PC competitor - Ada, and offered far better value for money to boot.

 

[Nesh]

But in pure performance terms PC's were ahead of the PS3 from day 1 by a pretty significant margin. Compared to the Xbox 360 which was a spectacular console the picture is more muddied because in raw performance terms it was theoretically possible to build a single GPU PC at the time that would hold up very well for years against it (but not it's full life). And within 2 months you could build a PC that was definitely more capable for arguably the consoles full life. Then within 1 year the console was severely outdated by the first DX10 GPU, arguably more so than the PS4 was at launch vs the top end PC's of the time.

Assuming the scenario that the PS3 was released simultaneously with the 360 or on a timely manner where the BR diodes didnt push the launch further, how would we have viewed the PS3 in terms of raw power and capabilities?
Certainly its GPU was lacking compared to the 360, but the CPU was on a completely different level and the console overall managed to output almost identically to the 360 as it matured, and sometimes visuals that were beyond anything anyone would have expected from it from its first party studios. So that significant margin is only partly accurate when we put the two consoles together and consider the launch delayed to manufacturing mishaps.

 

[chris1515]

Not sure what you're talking about here. The 8800GTX was the more powerful GPU of the two and it released in before (by a few days) the PS3 did. And it was a by far more powerful GPU than that in the PS3.



I'm fairly sure that in the vast majority of DX9 era games released on both platforms, the 7800 GTX512 (or it's more modern and available equivalent the 7900GTX) was putting in at least as good a performance as the Xbox 360. Obviously once games started to lean more heavily on DX10 and unified shaders those old GPU's wouldn't keep up, but it was years before that started to happen in the PC space.



Give me some examples? Of course the 7800 series was outdated on the PC side by G80, but G80 outdated both consoles too. It outdated everything.



Literally obliterating either consoles performance in virtually ever cross platform game for years. I remember this quite well. That card was a monster despite not having unified shaders. It could literally go head to head with the 7950GX2 in many games and could even give the 8800GTS a run for it's money. This is the 1950XTX but that was only a marginal upgrade over the original and this game is no exception:

100% sure. The XTX was pushing 426 GFLOPS of combined pixel and vertex shader power to Xenos's 216 GFLOPS. The 8800GTX was 518 GFLOPS including the MUL but had many other advantages.



I don't disagree with your core point that the PS4 generation launched in a worse position relative to PC's than the PS3 generation. That's a given. But in pure performance terms PC's were ahead of the PS3 from day 1 by a pretty significant margin. Compared to the Xbox 360 which was a spectacular console the picture is more muddied because in raw performance terms it was theoretically possible to build a single GPU PC at the time that would hold up very well for years against it (but not it's full life). And within 2 months you could build a PC that was definitely more capable for arguably the consoles full life. Then within 1 year the console was severely outdated by the first DX10 GPU, arguably more so than the PS4 was at launch vs the top end PC's of the time.

I do think the current gen is in a better position than the PS4 gen for the record though. Moreso at launch on the CPU and storage side than the GPU side though. However because the PS4 gen launched mid way through a GPU cycle (which it was already outdated by), the next gen of PC GPU's - Maxwell - arrived faster than this console generations 2nd gen PC competitor - Ada, and offered far better value for money to boot.

+1 The 8800 Gt destroyed the PS3 and 360 soon after release. The problem with PS3 and 360 the technology was so different than PC, it was a problem for port. On a technology level this was the same thing.

Consoles always are more interesting for the value and the performance/price.

 

[Remij]

I thought this was the current generation games analysis thread?

 

[Liandry]

1 SPU is disabled for yields and 1 (working) SPU is used for security encoding.
6/8 on the die can be used for games.

I meant raw power in total.

I said this on Day one. The bigger problem is that AMD is behind the curve compared to Nvidia and design gets more and more expensive as the generation goes by. If I were Sony/MS, I would skip a mid-gen console and just end this gen a little early.

Covid is also make hard hit on this gen. So yes, 2026 start would be great.

Not sure what you're talking about here. The 8800GTX was the more powerful GPU of the two and it released in before (by a few days) the PS3 did. And it was a by far more powerful GPU than that in the PS3.

One more time. 8800 gtx is 345.6 gflops and I think most powerful pc cpu in 2006 was not more than 50 glops. So ~ 390 gflops. PS3 Cell 200 + RSX 192 = 392. That is the same or near. Just raw performance. And X1 and PS4 was 2-3 times behind top PC for time they released.

Give me some examples? Of course the 7800 series was outdated on the PC side by G80, but G80 outdated both consoles too. It outdated everything.

Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Metro Last Light, Alien Isolation. And that is just few. All those games were on 7th gen consoles and I can't even find test on 7800, but will not be surprised if performance wouldn't be great. Crysis 3 will not work at all, because that game doesn't support Direct X10 and below. But that is different story. Metro Last LIght was great. When I played it on Xbox 360, there was a lot of amazing effects, high polygon count and very high texture resolution. For some moments I thought what maybe I play game on high end PC. Joking. I knew what wasn't true, but that game looked smazing. Also Alien Isolation was great in terms of polygon count.
As for 8800 true, but that was year later that xbox 360. So that is not very fair comparison. That is only my opinion.

100% sure. The XTX was pushing 426 GFLOPS of combined pixel and vertex shader power to Xenos's 216 GFLOPS.

Yes! Finaly someone aslo sain that Xenos had 216 gflops. Because there is a lot of sourses where is info about 240. But I remember ATI slide from some presentation where was info about 216. And as I know, that is only info about Gflops what ATI gave. I don't doubt your info, it's just interesting what 1900 had more power than 8800.

The 8800GTX was 518 GFLOPS including the MUL but had many other advantages.

Please if you can, give source for that info.

I don't disagree with your core point that the PS4 generation launched in a worse position relative to PC's than the PS3 generation. That's a given. But in pure performance terms PC's were ahead of the PS3 from day 1 by a pretty significant margin. Compared to the Xbox 360 which was a spectacular console the picture is more muddied because in raw performance terms it was theoretically possible to build a single GPU PC at the time that would hold up very well for years against it (but not it's full life). And within 2 months you could build a PC that was definitely more capable for arguably the consoles full life. Then within 1 year the console was severely outdated by the first DX10 GPU, arguably more so than the PS4 was at launch vs the top end PC's of the time.

That's true, but as I said, DX11 games don't work on DX10 or DX9 hardware. And sad what that PC power and power of GPUs what was released a years later haven't shown something proportionaly better that 7th gen consoles. LIke GPUs was 3-7 times more powerful, but except for resolution and fps they haven't shown much.

Assuming the scenario that the PS3 was released simultaneously with the 360 or on a timely manner where the BR diodes didnt push the launch further, how would we have viewed the PS3 in terms of raw power and capabilities?
Certainly its GPU was lacking compared to the 360, but the CPU was on a completely different level and the console overall managed to output almost identically to the 360 as it matured, and sometimes visuals that were beyond anything anyone would have expected from it from its first party studios. So that significant margin is only partly accurate when we put the two consoles together and consider the launch delayed to manufacturing mishaps.

If they were released same year PS3 looked a lot better. As I know PS3 was 30% more powerful than Xbox 360. Correct me is I'm wrong. I still haven't found info of how many Gflops had Xbox 360 CPU.
And I think Sony exclusives were with better graphics comparing to Xbox 360 exclusives released same year. I say that despite what I like Xbox 360 a lot more than PS3.