Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]

[Inuhanyou]

Only reason XSX does not run as well is because it was not given the time needed.

XSX GPU is better at compute than PS5 and similar Low Level RT API beyond DXR, yet it struggles in the Mode that uses more of it (RT is compute bound on RDNA2) - i.e. the devs did not give it as much time. A little bjlit embarassing IMO to have it be so obvious much like it was with Callisto Protocol where Xbox and PC were obvious second class citizens for time andmMoney Investment.

Either one platform comes out ok or they all come out with various problems seems like.

Maybe staggered releases would help, focus on one platform at a time properly instead of doing a half assed job trying to get them all out the door. I think people would rather wait than deal with issues at launch if it's a manpower shortage where devs can't manage all platforms at once. But I think it's also an issue of pubs not giving that type of leniency of development flexibility

 

[davis.anthony]

Only reason XSX does not run as well is because it was not given the time needed.

XSX GPU is better at compute than PS5 and similar Low Level RT API beyond DXR, yet it struggles in the Mode that uses more of it (RT is compute bound on RDNA2) - i.e. the devs did not give it as much time.

Well, on paper at least.

In relation to the Hogwarts video and with the game allowing the frame rate to be removed from every mode on both XSXC and PS5 I was expecting Rich to do a comparison similar to what you did with Controls photomode as it would be really good to see the performance percentage difference at the same settings and resolution.

 

[davis.anthony]

The real question is if it's a matter of resources why would they put like 5 different modes in the game for each version you have to optimize for? Cut two or 3 of those out and actually focus on the game proper within reason

Because making a few .ini tweaks for different modes is completely different and easier than optimising.

 

[Globalisateur]

Only reason XSX does not run as well is because it was not given the time needed.

XSX GPU is better at compute than PS5 and similar Low Level RT API beyond DXR, yet it struggles in the Mode that uses more of it (RT is compute bound on RDNA2) - i.e. the devs did not give it as much time. A little bjlit embarassing IMO to have it be so obvious much like it was with Callisto Protocol where Xbox and PC were obvious second class citizens for time andmMoney Investment.

And I guess when XSX performs better it's because it's more powerful? The "only reason" is also for all the others games performing better on PS5 (and there are a lot now)? That explanation is a bit premature I think. XSX may have more compute but is clocked lower with less usable cache per Tflops so it really depends of the engine and how everything (notably L2 caches) are used.

Besides it's not like we haven't got any previous cases where a RT heavy engine is working very well (better than similar RDNA2 PC) on PS5 like in Spider-man. In the end we have to take into account everything inside the APU. Not only compute and APIs but also hardware latencies, caches, custom silicon (like decompression units) etc.

Only the devs working on both machines can tell us the real reasons why some games are performing better on one console and not the other.

 

[Dictator]

(better than similar RDNA2 PC) on PS5 like in Spider-man.

RDNA2 on PC is limited by DXR 1.0 or 1.1 and cannot take advantage of hardware specific cuts in quality or optimisation enabled by console (custom traversal, custom BVH, offline BVH). That is not a comparable situation. Here we have boxes with nearly the same CPU, APIs of extremely similar low level capability when used, but one has a lot better GPU for what is the future of graphics: compute (i.e. not front end performance).

 

[snc]

but one has a lot better GPU for what is the future of graphics: compute (i.e. not front end performance).

since when 20% is "a lot" better ;d about hogwarts legacy many devs says ps5 is easier to develop + lower api/more lightweigh api (saw few times when there is cpu limitation ps5 have some slight advantage over xsx)

 

[davis.anthony]

RDNA2 on PC is limited by DXR 1.0 or 1.1 and cannot take advantage of hardware specific cuts in quality or optimisation enabled by console (custom traversal, custom BVH, offline BVH). That is not a comparable situation. Here we have boxes with nearly the same CPU, APIs of extremely similar low level capability when used, but one has a lot better GPU for what is the future of graphics: compute (i.e. not front end performance).

A bit of an exaggeration there Alex.

Given the real world scaling with RNDA2, XSX compute advantage will be lucky to reach double digits in the real world, a difference so small that it can be eaten away by API inefficiencies as we've been seeing.

That's not what I would call 'a lot better'

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I consider them one and the same. Again, I never specifically single out any developer or discipline. They all contribute to the development of the game.. and the release. Their internal issues are not my problem.

You kinda did when you said "developers are lazy". Management decisions aren't 'lazy'. A manager doesn't decide to ship a product on time regardless of quality because they are too lazy to delay the product. It's only the work effort of the engineers being inadequate in the development timeframe that satisfies your assertion.

 

[JPT]

Thing is, in regards to PC games and consoles to, shipping in a "bad" state, nobody really cares, because they keep pre-ordering and buying them before they are fixed.
Even when they know that the chances are big that they will be having problems.
And of course influence review sites to also weight that part of the product. Since bonuses etc are often tied to review scores, metacritic ratings etc etc, there probably is a bigger chance of change coming down the pipeline.
If the "stats" tells the publishers/development companies that games are not bought before problems are fixed, it will be changed.
Of course that does not automatically fix the problem with bad project management etc.

In the end, I think the biggest challenge is that you got to make something that needs to be technically good and something that needs to be creatively entertaining on a finite budget and time.

 

[pjbliverpool]

since when 20% is "a lot" better ;d about hogwarts legacy many devs says ps5 is easier to develop + lower api/more lightweigh api (saw few times when there is cpu limitation ps5 have some slight advantage over xsx)

Well if the game was locked at 60fps on one platform and consistently in the low 50's on the other platform, I think most people would consider that significant. And that's what 20% gets you.

 

[snc]

Well if the game was locked at 60fps on one platform and consistently in the low 50's on the other platform, I think most people would consider that significant. And that's what 20% gets you.

Then you lower slightly res or even better, use dynamic

 

[davis.anthony]

Well if the game was locked at 60fps on one platform and consistently in the low 50's on the other platform, I think most people would consider that significant. And that's what 20% gets you.

Scaling doesn't work in such a linear fashion, that 20% on paper might get you 8-10% in reality.

 

[yamaci17]

In the end both platform owners pay the exact same money. Such practices or occurences should not be happening. Frame drops I'm seeing on SX in hogsmeade is concerning, and more it happens, the less I'm likely to choose a SX over a PS5, which creates a problematic loop where

- SX gets less optimization because it has smaller userbase
- It has smaller userbase because it gets less optimization and drives people away (like me, who is a neutral PC owner. I'm seriosuly concerned over how Sx gets shafted in different manners or ways and I'm more and more inclined to get a PS5 if I plan to get a console).

This is a dangerous loop that puts SX in a big risk. Of course Xbox studios should hopefully get the best out of the machine but them games but we've yet to see anything solid aside from Flight Sim that is a niche title and Forza 5 which is a crossgen title that very much is a small upgrade over its predecessor. I feel like Starfield will be a critical benchmark and it is frightening considering Bethesda's track record, it may not really be a good look for Series consoles in general. I feel like Bethesda will most likely be incapable of optimizing their code/game for Series S especially and I think much drama will follow after.

 

[mr magoo]

In the end both platform owners pay the exact same money. Such practices or occurences should not be happening. Frame drops I'm seeing on SX in hogsmeade is concerning, and more it happens, the less I'm likely to choose a SX over a PS5, which creates a problematic loop where

- SX gets less optimization because it has smaller userbase
- It has smaller userbase because it gets less optimization and drives people away (like me, who is a neutral PC owner).

I do plan to get one of the two consoles, and the more I see problems like these, the more I swayed towards PS5, considering they have exclusive games that also happens to cater to me.

This is a dangerous loop that puts SX in a big risk. Of course Xbox studios should hopefully get the best out of the machine but them games but we've yet to see anything solid aside from Flight Sim that is a niche title and Forza 5 which is a crossgen title that very much is a small upgrade over its predecessor. I feel like Starfield will be a critical benchmark and it is frightening considering Bethesda's track record, it may not really be a good look for Series consoles in general. I feel like Bethesda will most likely be incapable of optimizing their code/game for Series S especially and I think much drama will follow after.

And this makes me wonder specially in conenction to all the talks about ABK acquisition and all the dirt that cames out to light. We have seen this behavior in many titles before, xbox and pc versions seems incomplete in comaprisson to PS5 version. PS5 version of the product often offers better performance and full features, whilse xbox version is badly optimised, missing RT and other features and takes weeks if not months of patches to get it to the state where you can considered it complete.
Its clear that one of the platforms was chosen as lead platform, this platform received good complete product on realase day with all features. We know that companies pay for exclusive deals, exclusive content, time exclusivity etc etc IMO what we se in those examples is just one platform chosen as lead platform wich was influenced by special deal.

This is just my observation and you can grill me for that but here comes why i think this could be the fact.
Time is money, so if time=money and one platfrom cleary had more time

"Only reason XSX does not run as well is because it was not given the time needed."

so ps5 version had more time=more money where does money come from
Anyway back to being serious again. Its is a huge problem as you mentioned it and i agree, really suck for Pc and xbox users.

 

[davis.anthony]

The Series consoles are suffering because Microsoft chose to wait for (full) RDNA2 while Sony didn't.

This delay in waiting for RDNA2 features gave Microsoft two options:

1. Spend the time ensuring the API was on point and optimised to use the new hardware features on day one by releasing the machines months after PS5 releases with the risk of giving Sony a big sales advantage.
2. Release them at the same time as PS5 so they don't give Sony a big sales advantage and update the API over time but at the risk of performing worse than PS5 which is a PR disaster for the 'worlds most powerful console'

Microsoft get battered by Sony when it comes to sales so there was no way they would go with option 1.

DirectX12U on Xbox might be slightly better than the PC variant in terms of access but it still likely has some limits due to it's cross platform nature that Sony simply have to worry about with their API.

People love a conspiracy theory but is it crazy to just think that Sony's API might just be that little bit better? That little bit more mature? That little bit more performant? And that the paper advantage Series-X has isn't actually that much better in reality?

 

[Seanspeed]

Well, on paper at least.

No, in reality. Whether developers are actually utilizing it well is another question, but it straight up, factually has more compute power. We're not talking about two wholly different architectures or whatever where performance per flop is not comparable.

And no, Sony didn't get any meaningful sales advantage by not waiting for 'full' RDNA2. Sony has just straight up been ordering for about 2x the manufacturing levels as Microsoft does, and each company will have determined this largely by expected demand. If PS5 has a big sales advantage, it's because they accurately assessed their demand, and that's about it. Microsoft could have easily built up and ordered the same level of manufacturing capacity as Sony did, but chose not to because they didn't think they'd be able to sell that much. And they were likely very right about that. It would have cost them a lot of money and problems.

But I do think Playstation's obviously popularity advantage is absolutely leading to developers giving it the lion's share of attention in critical optimization periods. This isn't a 'conspiracy' any more than your argument is, by the way. It's all quite speculative.

 

[davis.anthony]

No, in reality.

There's no GPU in the history of GPU's that has 100% scaling with additional units and AMD GPU's have also historically been poor at scaling with additional shader cores.

Whether developers are actually utilizing it well is another question, but it straight up, factually has more compute power. We're not talking about two wholly different architectures or whatever where performance per flop is not comparable.

I have never said XSX doesn't factually have more compute power, I said that it's advanagae on paper won't scale to that figure in reality.

And no, Sony didn't get any meaningful sales advantage by not waiting for 'full' RDNA2.

Where did I say they did? They could have potentially got a sales advantage if Microsoft chose option 1 in my post.

If anything Sony gained additional API development time.

Sony has just straight up been ordering for about 2x the manufacturing levels as Microsoft does, and each company will have determined this largely by expected demand. If PS5 has a big sales advantage, it's because they accurately assessed their demand, and that's about it. Microsoft could have easily built up and ordered the same level of manufacturing capacity as Sony did, but chose not to because they didn't think they'd be able to sell that much. And they were likely very right about that. It would have cost them a lot of money and problems.

Irrelevant

But I do think Playstation's obviously popularity advantage is absolutely leading to developers giving it the lion's share of attention in critical optimization periods.

Speculative

This isn't a 'conspiracy' anymore than your argument is, by the way. It's all quite speculative.

I would argue mine is more plausible then Sony paying for extra dev time to sabotage Series consoles.

 

[Seanspeed]

There's no GPU in the history of GPU's that has 100% scaling with additional units and AMD GPU's have also historically been poor at scaling with additional shader cores.

I have never said XSX doesn't factually have more compute power, I said that it's advanagae on paper won't scale to that figure in reality.

Where did I say they did? They could have potentially got a sales advantage if Microsoft chose option 1 in my post.

If anything Sony gained additional API development time.

Irrelevant

Speculative

I would argue mine is more plausible then Sony paying for extra dev time to sabotage Series consoles.

Usually scaling in performance for more compute power diminishes near the top end of things. Not in the middle, where the consoles are. And it's not like Microsoft didn't also sufficiently equip the XSX with the bandwidth needed for this scaling, either. This is a very poor argument. Even if I were to go along with it, it still doesn't excuse the XSX performing worse.

And no, there's nothing 'irrelevant' about the fact that Sony's sale advantage has come from simply being the more popular platform. And that being such a dominantly popular platform could absolutely be the most obvious explanation as to why XSX games seem to keep getting neglected. This doesn't mean that Sony is paying for any such thing, just that it could happen entirely naturally.

 

[yamaci17]

Usually scaling in performance for more compute power diminishes near the top end of things. Not in the middle, where the consoles are. And it's not like Microsoft didn't also sufficiently equip the XSX with the bandwidth needed for this scaling, either. This is a very poor argument. Even if I were to go along with it, it still doesn't excuse the XSX performing worse.

And no, there's nothing 'irrelevant' about the fact that Sony's sale advantage has come from simply being the more popular platform. And that being such a dominantly popular platform could absolutely be the most obvious explanation as to why XSX games seem to keep getting neglected. This doesn't mean that Sony is paying for any such thing, just that it could happen entirely naturally.

What if game taps into the slower 336 gb/s more than it should for GPU operations? Game is super vram intensive on desktop, could be a point to ponder...

 

[davis.anthony]

Usually scaling in performance for more compute power diminishes near the top end of things. Not in the middle, where the consoles are. And it's not like Microsoft didn't also sufficiently equip the XSX with the bandwidth needed for this scaling, either.

No it doesn't, it can happen at any performance segment.

Microsoft may have given XSX more bandwidth but they didn't increase the front and backend performance of the GPU to match like we see on PC GPU's when they're given more CU's.

Microsoft are trying to feed a GPU that's wider than PS5's GPU with a front and back end that's slower than PS5's.

That will hurt scaling.

This is a very poor argument. Even if I were to go along with it, it still doesn't excuse the XSX performing worse.

Why doesn't it? We know XSX strength lies in its compute performance and if a game isn't compute heavy then that strength is redundant.

We also know that the only area XSX's GPU beats out PS5's GPU is compute, in every other area of the GPU PS5's GPU is faster due to its higher clock rate.

Current games and games engines won't be pushing compute all that much so are likely to perform better on PS5 and games released towards the latter stage of the generation will likely be doing more things via compute and thus should perform better on XSX.

I do expect the performance advantage to shift away from PS5 to XSX as the generation progresses.

And no, there's nothing 'irrelevant' about the fact that Sony's sale advantage has come from simply being the more popular platform. And that being such a dominantly popular platform could absolutely be the most obvious explanation as to why XSX games seem to keep getting neglected. This doesn't mean that Sony is paying for any such thing, just that it could happen entirely naturally.

I think you've missed the point of my posts and comments.