Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2021]

and thats standard in pc world and nothing special ? ;d common

 

Probably, my english is far from good)

 

You're trying to take my statement way to literally. I (obviously) didn't mean that 5500MB/s drives with 2 CPU cores and all the rest of it were standard across the whole PC spectrum of SDD's. Merely that the components in the diagram that were being assumed to be proprietary to the PS5 were in fact standard in many consumer drives. Does that mean they have to have the exact same number of cores? Of course not. Merely that some of those component can come as standard in some commercial drives. Particularly high end drives which you were specifically referencing, i.e. the 7GB/s external drive that was being compared to. 2 helper cores on a drive like that would absolutely be nothing special. In fact, it would be below the standard.

 

nah, you try to say its nothing special and standard in pc for regular guys, but it not true, it was top notch i/o resolution in late 2020 and still is, don't know why pc guys has problem with it, pc has now like double gpu perf (even more with rt enabled) than ps5 but still i/o in this console is top notch tough eventualy will be also better in common pc in future, but for now its not standard (nvidia rtx io is still in development almost year after premiere of ps5)

 

No, this isn't remotely what I was saying at all, please re-read all of my posts on this again. I don't see why people need to get so defensive at the tiniest hint that the PS5 might not be pinnacle of storage/IO hardware in every way. I've already acknowledged that it's overall the fastest solution out there right now, but it's a simple fact that much of the hardware referenced in that slide you posted is not proprietary to the PS5 and does come as standard (it's not an optional extra is it) in some PC SSD's. Can we not just accept this and move on? I really wasn't trying to slight your PS5.

 

sure

 

And that's due to RTX IO/DS not being released to the public yet, its a software problem. Their working on it. It wasn't a rush anyway, seeing the amount of games even on PS5 truly taking advantage of such a IO system.
Many hardware need firmware/software updates to work as fast as intended.

So ain't the PS5, most playstation gamers are on PS4 systems (90% ?). No idea what the numbers are for pcie4 nvme systems out there, but if they would be as much as RTX users it would be quite substantional (which i doubt is the case though).

 

I liked the Crysis 2 DF video and the Crysis 2 conversion convinces me so far. Everything is even more uniform, more cinematic. The polygon level hasn't changed from the PC version but textures, materials, lighting and some other effects are new and modern. That's more than I would have expected. The updated Mass Effect, for example, among other improved effects, only has sharper non PBR looking textures.

While a new Crysis would be better than remaster games Crytek's situation is weakened and they can't easily fund a new Crysis.

What bothers me is that Crytek said that gamers of today want to play everything on the highest settings and that's why they don't offer extreme graphics options anymore. I can't follow this mental problem in which some people can only play on the highest settings and everything else cannot be accepted. In my opinion these gamer type is stupid. Even if you can't set everything very high you can set it according to your preferences.

 

apparently crytek read all, so please consider 40fps higer res mode on 120hz tv's edit: oh its still only bc, crytek nowadays has recources like indie devs

 

It's psychological.

Not that it's what I personally want, but I've been advocating for some years now that developers should stop offering any sort of 'extreme' sort of settings that hurts performance too much. Or if they do, have them separated as 'Future' settings in a separate submenu or adjustable through an ini file or something.

Too many gamers judge how 'optimized' a game is by sticking everything on max and seeing how it runs. So developers could get better reception by taking away many high cost settings, so gamers could put things on max and then have surprisingly good performance. Gamers would claim the game is 'very optimized' and be happy with it and give good Steam reviews and whatnot.

I feel like Far Cry 5 is a good example of this. Gamers were very happy with the PC version of the game and how well it ran. All because there were no extreme graphics options. All the highest settings would be more like 'High' settings in some other game.

 

+1 for ini tweaks. Some people don’t actually care if medium in one game is better than ultra in every other game. They just need to “max out”. So better to call medium ultra and allow further tweaking from there.

 

comparing to bc mode resolution up from 1800p cb to 2160p cb, flawless 60 fps (even 0 drops in photo mode which occured in bc mode)

 

It's really neat that they went back and essentially real timed all of the cutscenes in ghost because they don't have to worry about hdd loading speeds not being able to keep up with the quick cuts to different environments. That ssd is working already

 

They really couldn't give this "upgrade" for free? Obviously not talking about the new island, just the PS5 native app.

 

Price also increased significantly up to a flawless 80€.

 

if you have copy (which I sold haha) its only 20$ + 10$ for resolution boost ;d

 

Well they could but why they should ? You don’t like money ?

 

"The PlayStation 5 edition costs $69.99, and the PlayStation 4 version is $59.99—though you can upgrade a PS4 copy of the base game to the Director's Cut for $19.99"
sounds very rude charging $20, should of only been $10
though perhaps they are arguing the ps5 version is $80 (but they include a $10 discount, but I dont think anyone would believe this argument)