The MS presentation indicated that the ML acceleration was an optional part of the design they decided to add because it had minimal hardware cost.
As long as those missing features don't demonstrate any practical advantage in quality, yes, there is no difference.
Yep, well, I suppose as long as it’s the lead console there will never be any practical difference. Why would they paths that don’t work on PS5. It is a luxury to have a code path that doesn’t work on the largest platform. Few engine teams out there have the funding, resourcing and talent to do it.
I dont share this argument at all. So called RDNA2 specialized feature sets so far, appear to be more or less doing whatever RDNA1 (PS5?) does. Just differently and only applicable on very very specific scenarios. You would expect RDNA2 to offer some specialized visual features or improvements across the board in some areas. Like in the case of RT to either look better or have less performance impact due to RDNA2. But they are identical. Series X failed to deliver anything special even in its own exclusive titles or if they did, they dont offer anything meaningfully observable. Devs don't seem to bother. Third party or 1st party. Halo, Starfield, Forza didn't stand out in any way above what PS5 offered.
I’m not just referring to hardware features, optimization is really at the API level. So yes you are right. I’m just inferring that even if the hardware was the same, it would still be heavily optimized in PS5s favour. There are fundamental differences between DX12 and GNM that require different paths for optimizing the same problem for instance.
No, "XBOX RDNA2" as you call it, or "RDNA2" as AMD call it in all their PC promotional literature, has actual hardware differences.
Sort of crazy back in the day the difference between a 486SX100 and a 486DX100. A single letter. But massive performance differentials in some use cases.
I don't think there ever was a 100mhz 486SX part?. Still remember when my brother and I upgraded from a 386/40 to 486DX2/66 and how amazing Doom ran after that
That was the inclusion of an FPU versus not, equivalent to adding hardware T&L to a GPU. Are the bits missing from PS5's RDNA2 implementation as significant as that? Or do they contribute to all of 5% improvements overall when used effectively?
Nah. I’m it’s just funny that back in the day they didn’t really care to really market the difference between SX and DX (all it is, is a letter difference) But it was a world of difference. We don’t see that here, too much emphasis on something that doesn’t matter.That was the inclusion of an FPU versus not, equivalent to adding hardware T&L to a GPU. Are the bits missing from PS5's RDNA2 implementation as significant as that? Or do they contribute to all of 5% improvements overall when used effectively?
I'm still lost as to what the argument is for RDNA specification in PS5 and XBS, and what its relevance is to PS5Pro. Was there an argument behind this beyond people just getting tied up with a definition?
Some PS5 games are already bounded by CPU. Better CPU will achieve more stable frame rate.
Because in 2028 the PS6 will come out, and if it has to be around 2X the power of a PS5 pro, they can't push the upgrade too far. Going from a zen 2 to a zen 7c (?) will probably get them 2x the CPU power at a similar cost and wattage, while going from a zen 5c to zen 7c in 2028 would be a much smaller upgrade.
As nice as that'd be, I think it runs the risk of both introducing compatibility issues and increasing costs. Neither to an enormous extent, but both to an unnecessary extent.
