I think Alex was right with the 2070. One of the main reasons could be different architectures. But lets await what others have to say, im not sure anymore
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2020]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
I think Alex was right with the 2070. One of the main reasons could be different architectures. But lets await what others have to say, im not sure anymore
that challenge that I found with Turing is that they have separate int32 units that they use in parallel with the fp32. So they get free silicon in that calculation. While AMD has to use their FP32 units to do FP32, but it's taken away from their TF total. Ampere falls in line with AMD, by making the path FP32 + INT32 or FP32 + FP32. So their TF calculation is now aligned with AMD and no longer obscured.
RT calculations are also pretty difficult to calculate, RT cores do something different from how AMD approaches RT.
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
True. Early in the gen, DF made the 750ti comparison. I wonder if the 750Ti would be able to render RDR2 at the same performance/quality level of PS4 or even XB1.
And thats how Alex came to 2070 vanilla as baseline for PS5 non RT performance. And like he said, its probably going to be the Ampere variant to that in his lower end machine to match PS5 (3060 or lower most probable).
Yes, not even a 680 does well in modern games. But they said 7850/70 aswell, and that thing perfectly matches the PS4, even as of today.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Dunno about that, I just flicked through to this video:
Someone tested a 7850 in 2019. Using one example, Shadow of the Tomb Raider is running at 720p and low settings.
I don't find it interesting at all considering usually part of marketing deals.
Very smart deals by Sony.
I wouldn't read anymore into it than that for the time being.
Yes thats one example. I dont have a 7850, but a 7870 2gb, yes its abit faster then the PS4 gpu, but it does atleast match it in most titles, if you run exact same settings. It just seems that AMD gpus have aged much better, Eternal on a 7870 even outperforms the PS4 version.
But yes we can find games that dont perform well, also games that do outperform PS4. Thing is, it ballpark matches.
In NVs case, no idea what happened there, but their gpus didnt age as well as compared to GCN. Had to do something with their compute abilities someone told me here.
I have a 7950 3gb too, its very close to the Pro in Doom eternal.
hmm yea. lol.
7870 I think is closer to PS4 performance, but the biggest differential of what kills is not the compute performance but the complete lack of memory.
7870 and 7850 only have 2GB of memory compared to PS4s 6-7ish.
As the generation went on to have a larger footprint in memory, the harder it would be for these cards to keep things in storage so they would need to keep dropping the quality settings to save space in the memory.
it does make an interesting point that 16GB might be too little looking forward but that's probably a separate topic.
DXR has been around since 2018 and games released for them respectively during that year. So that can't be right. You'd use basically the same calls.
PC DXR maybe, but I believe Xbox isn't using the exact same DirectX. They use their own APIs. And there is also the availabilty of the devkits.
It's the same thing between Xbox and PC. The only difference is that there are a couple more calls/options on the Xbox one that the PC doesn't have access to. But everything is the same.
They've already released the Minecraft DXR version that ran on Series X that was made in 4 weeks. So I think it works.
Devkit availability could be an issue.
Other issues might be that the games that use RT are just too far out.
And I suppose if one is hopeful, MS has been holding to announce RT enhancements for the remaining 4 weeks before launch.
I think Sony is ahead because of the same reason Sony actually has launch titles. They've been working on this a lot longer.
Xbox has DXR 1.0 to use, 1.1, as well as a lower Mode that offers more direct Hardware access.
The PC had APIs available for 2 years now.
Base PS4 has about half that available for VRAM. In fact, the max ever used by GG is just around 3GB. 7870 2gb actually competes fine with just that amound of vram.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Same rules apply now too, right? Those 2060Ss top out at 8GB. I can't see a situation where it would be advisable to use one of those instead of either of the consoles. Looks like both should comprehensively best it. Five years from now that gap will get wider.
Only scenario is heavy usage of RT, but I imagine most developers will make efficient use of the consoles in a way that'd make it visibly negligible.
This was an interesting concern around 3080 that many of my friends kept telling me not to buy it and just to wait. 10GB of memory may not be sufficient even if, from a bandwidth perspective, it was more than enough. Reducing the texture footprint is helpful, and this is something both consoles can do (and will do) with their SSDs architectures. But it's interesting how much more memory is being used say in UE5 where textures are only taking up 768MB.
well its targetting a lower spec overall. So it might be passable. I think the assumption is that PS5 and XSX have to target near 4K in some form or another. 4K is pressumably going to take about up to 4x more memory footprint over 1080p.Your not being nice to the XSS there
While PS4 and 7870 were targeting the same resolutions. in which the 2GB was a detriment that caused it to need to be reduced to 720p.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I've checked that too. 7870 also doesn't compete, take a look at Doom Eternal here:
900p everything on low. That looks nasty and quite far behind both Xbox One and PS4.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
