Current Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

not best api is good explanation for xsx perf but also first games doesn't show bandwidth lacking on ps5

 

There's nothing surprising in these results. Most of the needed information is out there in the public domain, and most didn't analyse it enough, which is why most are surprised.

 

Sure, but if the past has shown, the PS5 will sell more than the XBSX/XBSS combined. That said, your normal joe on the street might see 560GB/s displayed all over the XBox show but then watch reviews like DF and then have pause for concern about which box to buy.

I'm talking the normal joe here and not the fanboy. That said, the normal Joe might just well buy a PC.

Back to the bandwidth, is having 16GB of streamlined 448GBps memory going to hinder the PS5 compared to 10GB 560GBps & 6GB 336GBps. Again if listening to developers talk, some said that having the split memory could be an issue if the GPU runs riot on the 10GB portion. That's not me saying the 10GB is a problem, but actual developers saying it could be a problem.

 

So going by AMDs slide



Power per compute unit for 1825MHz is ~1.4 while for 2.2GHz it is around 2.

This would mean total wattage for CUs for XSX is around 72W, while for PS5 it is 79W.

It would mean that Sony sacrificed TFs for some of the goodies high clocks provide, while MS did the opposite. To be precise, they were forced to do exactly what they did when they decided on 52CU chip at around 200W. Raise that to 230-240W constant like PS5 power delivery, and MS would deliver ~13.5TF console.

 

Haha, they changed it. Now it's the most powerful Xbox.

https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/consoles/xbox-series-x

https://www.windowscentral.com/micr...onsole-confirms-hellblade-ii-senuas-saga-runs

The most powerful console ever
Re-engineered from the inside out
Designed for speed and performance
Amazing graphical fidelity

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2020/06...ocid=Platform_soc_omc_xbo_tw_Video_lrn_6.10.2

 

But the results show a different story. In AC the 2 scenes displaying the biggest gap (20-30%) seem to be both CPU and GPU limited (because in a big game like this with DRS the GPU is constantly pushed).

PS5 could somehow have less problem of bandwidth when both CPU and GPU are used. Don't forget XSX has its own specific unique (and rather untested) memory solution. Many have theorized that it could lower the available bandwidth (more than usual) if both CPU and GPU were heavily used simultaneously.

 

Is it possible to deduct from the power draw if the final retail units are in fact currently downclocked?
I looked at all the game comparisons and it appears the PS5 has a solid 20% performance lead in a lot of situations, PS5 should be 20% weaker so the 40% performance delta cannot be attributed to bad MS SDK tools only, I believe the Series X is probably downclocked 30% compared to what was marketed earlier.

 

Guys, lets wait and see. No point in console warring this early in gen, many things can change

While results are certainly surprising, what is equally surprising is how good XSX SSD performs. Its extremely close to faster, more brute approach from Sony (although that will probably change in future as well).

 

This is not console warring, I will buy a PS5 and not an XSX. I prefer Sony exclusive game. I need proof and on paper XSX is a bit more powerful and devs hint for months than PS5 API is more performant but this a software problem it can improve not an hardware one.

Same I know if XSX show its power the advantage will not be anywhere near the PS4 advantage compared to Xbox One or the Xbox One X advantage compared to PS4 Pro.

 

They've mostly had that seemingly contrasting power claims since the beginning of the year, so nothing to see with that.

 

There is not secret sauce because Cerny told us all. There is a great custom coherency and cache system and there is a geometry engine that will make polygons sing.

 

I wouldn't know as I don't visit the site much but they did refer to the XBSX as the most powerful gaming console and not refer it as the most powerful Xbox console, which they are doing now.

 

And if (and it is) GE is programmable and devs played around it for a year + now and SSD works like charm, while devs are not using SFS or Mesh Shaders on XSX thus frame rate sky dives during certain scenes etc. etc. then we will just have to wait and see. I mean, DCM5 barely got RT on XSX in last minute, like Watch Dogs, I would still think DF knows their stuff and has good sources when they say tools are coming in hot and late.

Now there is a chance devs cannot saturate 52CUs in console and that 560GB/s and 10GB is not enough for XSX but is for 3080, but I would give them benefit of a doubt here. Many here dont remember PS360 time, that was 5x worse hehe

 

Devs don't exploit PS5 or XSX new features, this is essentially cross gen games. When devs exploit a bit the PS5 it gives Demon's souls and Bluepoint can push the PS5 much further.

 

Yeah, some places it's explicit Xbox Console and others it's not. Likely from it not being worth the time for someone to comb over every section of their site and updating verbiage.

 

It would be hard to believe that. Everyone just knows RDNA2 is much more efficient than RDNA1.

 

One question, what is the impact of having additional CU per Shader Array? I mean, I was reading today a piece after the 6800 reviews came and it described all the known configuration of RDNA2 based GPUs, including PS5 and XBSX. One thing that stood out is that PS5 and AMD cards have 10 CUs per SA, while XBSX has 14. Maybe that distinctiveness is what is different and developers need to optimize for that yet? What's the advantage of that configuration vs the standard one (if any)?

 

In physical design, yes, but not in architecture. They are the same apart from TMU extension for RT.

There are changes to RB and in HW support for SF, Mesh Shaders and VRS, but otherwise its been efficiency gain through physical design it seems as far as CUs go.

 

Except Cerny said that they(Sony and AMD) designed a new Geometry engine, added cache scrubbers, coherency engine etc. That's custom! It's things that won't appear on the XBSX SOC from my understanding as Cerny explained it.

So I doubt RDNA1 will be better than Sony's custom SOC, even if it does share some of the tech.

 

Technically they’re N7P or N7 “enhanced”.