Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

[snc]

https://www.techspot.com/review/1870-amd-radeon-rx-5700/

As I said, it's 2070 level not 2080 edit: I know benchmarks of 5700xt (btw it's little higher than 9.2tf) and it's closr to rtx2070 than 2080.

 

[Proelite]

As I said, it's 2070 level not 2080 edit: I know benchmarks of 5700xt (btw it's little higher than 9.2tf) and it's closr to rtx2070 than 2080.

The sustained clock for 5700 XT is ~1750mhz. That's ~9TF.

If you look at most benchmarks online, the 5700XT is ahead of the 2070.

 

[snc]

The sustained clock for 5700 XT is ~1750mhz. That's ~9TF.

If you look at any benchmarks online, the 5700XT is ahead of the 2070.

depands, in techpowerup review on avarage it's 9.5tf and almost identical perf as 2070 https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/28.html

 

[BRiT]

But Sony consoles will be more metal core, and won't have these pesky drivers sucking out the performance...

 

[MrFox]

Also John Carmack said console have twice the performance of PC equivalent hardware. It's going to be true forever... bye....

 

[Proelite]

At least on the CPU side of the equation, consoles got a lot more out of the jaguars due to lower OS overhead + HSA.

 

[PSman1700]

How much is that advantage nowadays over w10/dx12 or vulcan? The jaguar being on par with a q6600, how much of an uplift do we see?

 

[snc]

I would say that this console generation didn’t show gpu perf boost for console and they have perf quite simillar to their desktop equivalents but for sure cpu boost is huge. There is no possibility to play modern games on something like jaguar.

 

[Xbat]

How much is that advantage nowadays over w10/dx12 or vulcan? The jaguar being on par with a q6600, how much of an uplift do we see?

I would say a massive difference. I could not get 60fps in battlefield 1 when I still had my 2500k and it was CPU bound.
I know a 2500k was old for that game but it was a hell of a lot more powerful than the jaguar in the consoles I also had a healthy overclock on it.

 

[PSman1700]

Yes there must be a huge uplift. My 920 @stock performs better for the most though, never worse, comparing bf4 mp, doom, planetside 2 etc. But thats i7 (8 logical cores). The jaguars are slow but have 8 cores, which might give them an edge in optimized games over a 4 core part (where it its optimized for 8 cores).

No idea where the jags compete, they are about as fast as a q6600 from 2006 (DF), but optimisations lift that to something like a i7 6700?

 

[DavidGraham]

No idea where the jags compete, they are about as fast as a q6600 from 2006 (DF), but optimisations lift that to something like a i7 6700?

Not a chance, they are barely the level of i3. The reason why an i5 2500K couldn't get a 60fps in BF1 is using the Ultra settings, consoles run medium settings in BF1, which is much less CPU intensive than Ultra.

 

[PSman1700]

Not a chance, they are barely the level of i3. The reason why an i5 2500K couldn't get a 60fps in BF1 is using the Ultra settings, consoles run medium settings in BF1, which is much less CPU intensive than Ultra.

Actually youre right, was thinking about a while ago, where i was watching DOOM low end pc vs ps4 comparisons, an i3/gtx760 combo outdoing the base ps4. Even a 2009 i5 doing better. All this talk about huge advantages due to draw calls and all, yes they are there, but its nowhere near what some are saying.

In the case of BF MP, that game on pc is rather badly optimised, there is even a workaround for the game to use more logical cores. (gstRender). It is set to low amount to account for lower end pc's.
It is also true that higher settings, in special ultra, increases CPU usage heavily. I think one of them was Mesh Quality.
Anyway, jaguars have a draw call advantage, but it doesn't make that much of a difference. To match base console performance you just get away with about anything. According to DF, a Q6600 rawly matches the jaguar @1.6ghz. Thats a cpu from 2006, when the 7th generation was just there. A Q6600 can be OC'd incridibly well, btw.

With the 2020 consoles, the CPU must be the biggest upgrade.

 

[Xbat]

Not a chance, they are barely the level of i3. The reason why an i5 2500K couldn't get a 60fps in BF1 is using the Ultra settings, consoles run medium settings in BF1, which is much less CPU intensive than Ultra.

Just no, I wasn't using anyware near ultra settings. I've been gaming on PC since the nineties I know how to and what the settings mean when trying to get the most out of my hardware.

I even tried low settings just to see and got the exact same fps.

 

[Xbat]

Actually youre right, was thinking about a while ago, where i was watching DOOM low end pc vs ps4 comparisons, an i3/gtx760 combo outdoing the base ps4. Even a 2009 i5 doing better. All this talk about huge advantages due to draw calls and all, yes they are there, but its nowhere near what some are saying.

Doom barely used my 2500k I think I got like 30-50% CPU usage in it.

I was also running about a 4.2 GHz clock on that 2500k and there's no way the jaguars were comparable to it.

 

[DavidGraham]

Just no, I wasn't using anyware near ultra settings. I've been gaming on PC since the nineties I know how to and what the settings mean when trying to get the most out of my hardware.

Were you playing at 1080p or higher? And with which GPU?

 

[PSman1700]

The jaguars have an advantage in draw, overhead, but it aint magic. Doom is 60fps it uses rather much of the jaguars i think.
BF in general is very bad optimised and in special MP its hard to directly compare. An q6600 is said to be close to a 1.6ghz jaguar, optimisations wont lift it much ahead of that. An underclocked fx8550 perhaps.

 

[Xbat]

Were you playing at 1080p or higher? And with which GPU?

1080p and I was using a GTX 970

 

[PSman1700]

No problems on a 3550 and a 660. That’s bf4 siege of shanghai 64 tdm. Dont have bf1 installed on that system bit dont remember much trouble there.

 

[DavidGraham]

1080p and I was using a GTX 970

PS4 runs 900p and uses much lower settings than PC "medium settings" and it's not even locked to 60fps too, it drops below it a lot.

 

[Xbat]

PS4 runs 900p and uses much lower settings than PC "medium settings" and it's not even locked to 60fps too, it drops below it a lot.

I pretty sure the CPU had nothing to do with the resolution.
Yes it does drop below it on PS4 but a 2500k at 4.2ghz is a lot more powerful than the jaguar in the consoles all things being equal the 2500k should of easily maintained 60fps.