3080 > XSX > 2080 > 2070 > PS5

@i_own_u_4ever: still spreading FUD huh? This gen really messed you up I guess. Sucks for you that PS5 will be top dog as usual. Games will look about the same, only so much 16 percent difference will do. Keep lying to yourself though. Playstation will be easier to develop for and will be lead platform as more money will come from it. I feel sorry for you as an Xbox fanboy.

From the memory layout of the XSX diagram looks like the whole APU can access both types of memory . However the design will cause issues since devs will have allocate and force the memory usage based on priority. If they start running out of memory of the 10gb pool for vram and have to swap to the slower 6gb can could cause some headaches.

When it comes cpu functions GDDR6 isn't the best solution to begin with. The bandwidth of the 6gb for OS,features and game cache wouldn't be affected with the 336gb/s. The gpu performance would be affected once that 10gb buffer gets saturated.

@zaryia:

Nope

But on release the Xbox s x won’t be mid tear due to what pc grafix cards hit the shelves HaH

Will it be Top of the tree....NO,but it will be high end..

@bluestars: high end held back by current gen design, lmao. Don't kid yourself, PS5 is in the same ballpark with its own advantages. Can't wait for the reaction when games look the same. Rude awakening incoming.

From what i read optimal memory which is GPU and standard offer identical performance for the CPU its only the GPU which actually seethe different speed,so if the CPU were to take memory from the GPU it would see it as 336GB/s only the GPU is able to use 560Gb/s and part of the 336GB/s.

Bur i don't think the CPU would take memory from the 10GB optimal side,because already there is 3.5GB as standard memory + the 2.5GB for OS.

Dude it will probably be mid high end,and that is OK the xbox will not cost you $1,200 will cost you probably $500 so what it has is more than good,and probably be mid range.

Did Ron get banned? Haven't seen him around in a while, thought for sure he would flock to a nerd battle this thread has become.

Yes and we're grateful for that.

04dcarraher, you're arguing with a brick wall, dude. Me3x12 (i_own_u_4ever) showed up near the last console launch and posted the exact same kind of nonsense threads until he got banned. His only response is, "you're clueless, you have no common sense," while incessantly posting pointless thread after pointless thread about the new Xbox with absolutely no substance or even any semblance of thought put into his posts.

carraher: I respect your desire to engage in rational conversation. me3: you were doing this in 2013. How have you not matured, even a little bit? This is sad.

Right now a GeForce is infinitely stronger than the next Xbox since you know the damn thing is t released yet....

The PS5 has been beaten by an year old laptop for the UE5 demo. Cry more!

Also, for the 48th time where are the sources for GDDR is better than DDR for CPUs? Still waiting for it after two months.

Don't know what that quote supposed to discredit. He's saying it could run above 30FPS then why the resolution was variable? The official briefing did say it was upto 1440p and dropping resolution so yeah, you can't have it both ways.

Oh and it's factually wrong that consoles can't run at unlocked frame rate. KZ:SF and Infamous: SS both released with unlocked FPS going above 30 but under 40. So was GoW 3 on PS3 was in 40s range.

The post seems like after cover up just like the previous 'the engineer was talking about video quality' which now seems like they gave up on after realizing how stupid it sounded.

Lastly since you are so focused on 5700, do tell me about the RT, ML and rest of the DX12 Ultimate capabilities of 5700 in comparison to MaxQ.

Speak for yourself. I thought Ron was at least entertaining because he riled up all you hermits, probably why dav banned him and yet keeps the PC loving alt in casual4ever around.

Ron's outburst is what let him to his banned in the first place and I warn him about it but know this. I have nothing to do with his banning. So yes, I stand with Juub on this and not my fault, that was done by other mods.

Not relevant to my post or argument. If you want to brag about XSX vs PS5, then take it up to cows. But against PC, it's weaker than 2 year old GPUs.

@i_p_daily: Nah. Dude kept editing his posts to add insults to them. Sometimes two or three times.

Cap Ron was banned?

Say it ain't so. :P

wow you make up crap just to be heard. ms is notorious for not releasing big performance gain dev kits updates. lol they all do that. the games sony has been making for the last 2 years for the ps5 got new dev kits aswell. i have proof the spiderman video the ssd was only half the speed in that video.

proof number 2 new dev kits came out for the ps5 now epic had to change the code for the unreal engine 5 to be able to take full advantage of the ps 5 i/o put. the ssd is even faster than the old dev kits and more custom hardware. you don't get what mark is doing with the ps5. the ps5 custom main chip decompress the data before it hits your gpu or cpu. it goes straight to system memory ram. series x cpu has to do all the work to decompress the data and check in. sony even said the made a changes to the gpu but they have not revealed yet. mark made last min changes to the gpu. so we have to wait on that.

plus third parties are saying the ps5 is the better system plus you got epic saying it to. you have mark carmock saying it as well. the lead industry guys are saying the ps 5 is better because it is more balanced system and the easiest console to dev for.

the only ones are saying the series x is better does not have ps5 dev kits. there working on the series x only.

Ron hated PC so much that he played 99% of games on PC this gen.

He's like Giovela. Can't quit greatness.

Yup, it's basically equal to non-S RTX 2060.

I stand corrected, my bad. The reason I sad you was because it was you who gave him his last 2 warnings.

The 5700XT has a 225W TDP (suggested PSU 550W) and thermals that hit the mid 80's when gaming. That's not going in a console box... ESPECIALLY a console with only 1 fan (not to cool, but displace hot air) Remember, the CPU is clocked much higher than any console CPU we saw this gen. TDP and heat are gonna be 2 concerns. So caution needs to be raised when talking increased CU counts and higher clocks. Comparisons to PC parts won't make much sense still. For example, the Xbox One X maxes out at 245W. The Series X won't go much higher than that if at all. We are talking 250W maybe. You aren't getting RTX 2080 performance with a Ryzen 7 comparable CPU at 250W. Especially not from AMD. They haven't shown us ANYTHING that would lead me to believe they're capable of that. And I'm gonna say it again. I wish that Series X (*not) cooling fan the best of luck...

As for that Gears demo, be careful. The last time we used a demo to predict real world performance, @ronvalencia had a group of Lems thinking the Scorpio would beat a GTX 1070.

Is there a reason you're ignoring the 50% increase in power efficiency of RDNA2?

The CPU is pretty much a 3700X with lower clocks.

Just telling you what it said that it could go well above 30.

I also didn't claim games couldn't run at an uncapped framerate. I said when they use Vsync ( which they did) it will only run at 30 or 60. My guess is because they couldn't get it to 60 and the framerate was variable so they locked it at 30.

5700 doesn't have RT but a PS5 supposedly has it in every CU. I will be curious to see the RT performance myself. But saying a laptop beats a PS5 based off a quick blurb from an engineer is disengenious. Were the settings the same? Was it the exact same demo? These are things that I would ask myself before I make that claim. And I would also not base all performance standards by one demo.

Ugh consoles are gonna be so shitty. Again.

Aren't you tired of the same trolling antics?

Jesus trolls here freakin suck.

The reason I'm ignoring AMD's claims? Around 24 years of AMD GPU's

The RDNA vs RDNA 2 50% slide also shows that there was supposed to be a 50% increase between GCN and RDNA. That didn't happen... (unless they're talking about GCN 1.0 that launched in 2011 instead of GCN 4.0 from 2016) So why would you take this next claim at face value?

Every time AMD makes a GPU claim, folks bite but end up disappointed.

The next-gen CPU's are pretty much 3700X's from what we know. The advertised clocks almost match the base clock of the 3700X, right? That's a 65W chip right there that isn't exactly cool temperature wise. A CPU with clocks this high have been avoided in the past because of heat and power. So now we have a competent console CPU (finally!!!) competing with the console GPU for power and cooling. Sure console APU's are more efficient in both respects, but saying RTX 2080+ and Ryzen 7 3700X performance is a given seems pretty outlandish to me. Especially with console TDP and a single (non) cooling fan. Something doesn't jive here.

@pc_rocks:

No it wasn't the whole laptop bullshit was a joke that laptop wasn't even running the game it was playing a video.😂😂😂

You are just green that for a small amount of money people will top your imaginary PC.😂😂

But but but the 2080max Q.😂

Never claimed it was a given. I said based on what we know it's entirely possible.

The GCN claims are also out the window because we know the SX packs 56CU's at 1,825MHz. This lines up with the 50% increase in efficiency because if it weren't true, they would have never gotten anywhere near this amount of CU's with clocks this high. 2080-class performance is very possible if not likely. Would I be shocked if it fell short? Nah but I expect it to be at least equal to a 2070S.

Yeah its going to be weaker than a 2 year old $1,200 GPU what a shock.

Man even if the series X end up been a 2080,it is a superve value for what you get,that 2080 still goes for $600+ dollars,much much much muchhhhhhh better than PC,the amount of money saving you get getting a series X over building a PC to match it is huge.

The same even on the PS5 case with a weaker GPU.

Dude i remember a time were Ati had a stronger GPU than Nvidia,they basically are owning intel now in the CPU side.

But is easy to see that the whole 50% improvement is real,the xbox series X has 52CU and runs at 1800+mhz man several 5700XT models don't even run that high on stock.

The PS5 will run at 2.3ghz even if they lower the clocks 5% still is over 2.0ghz so yeah that gain is real.

Worse you using in the argument the 5700 which doesn't represent RDNA2,is like saying the 3000 from Nvidia would have the same pitfalls as the 2000 series it make no sense.

You poor fella how is your imaginary PC?😂

Ole mid range Andy is having a crisis.

Well, if you have a problem with that then take it up with the Epic's engineer not me.

Both systems will be easy to develop for but actually a dev came out recently and said the XSX was the easiest of all time to developer for.

https://www.windowscentral.com/chorvs-developer-says-xbox-series-x-easier-develop-any-other-console#:~:text=The%20game's%20Head%20of%20Core,X%20than%20any%20other%20console.%22

Wonder where an RX 6600 would fit in.

@pc_rocks: The Epic engineer said none of that. Stop spreading misinformation.

And I also debunked that claim. There was no need to drop resolution if it could go above 30, the resolution would have been locked. Also he said frame time, not frame rate. He's as vague as he can.

So, you don't know about the RT/MT capabilities of PS5 and like to make a statement that it's better than whatever RTX line of GPU you're putting it against? Who's disingenuous now? So, you're making a claim that PS5 should be better than 5700 and then in the same breadth telling me it has RT capabilities. RT doesn't come free, it would have taken a chunk of the die size.

As for you now changing the argument to settings and unknown variable. Do you know how did it compare to the PS5 demo? If you do then enlighten me but if you don't why should I give you a benefit of the doubt over that engineer? He was specifically talking about the demo so it's pretty reasonable to assume that everything was same or he ouldn't have atlked about 40+ FPS. Doesn't even make any sense then.

Nevertheless, if you want to prove something then take it up with Epic to say the following:

1) The engineer on the video was wrong and the demo didn't run at 40+ FPS on laptop
2) Or the official press release was wrong where the demo was running with variable resolution

Oh, I'm not saying that PS5 might not be able to outperform 5700 or MaxQ. Could very well, but the mental gymnastics to discredit what Epic Engineer said is just laughable and doesn't make any sense. At this point in time, based on what he said, PS5 is beaten by a year old laptop in the UE5 demo until proven otherwise.

Maybe you're not aware of it, but new Nvidia and AMD GPU's are (supposed to) launch few months before before XSX/PS5 - throwing even "teh almighty XseXXX" into midrange category (almost given for Nvidia GPU's, don't have much hope in AMD, but i'd be glad if they show up to be competive).

Also PS5 being on equal footing with an RTX 2070/2070 S (well, at least according to Epic), which i have since launch (mine is OC'ed beyond RTX 2070 Super, mind you) and already is out of breath in most games, well, good luck being stuck with that shit for next 5+ years... That overhyped SSD won't do any miracles when it comes to computing and "otpimization" is just a myth... *cringes*

2 weeks late on this DC that has already been debunked in the original thread about the Epic engineer. Also so funny that even the person who actually said something about the 'video quality' has retracted the statement, go and ask your fellow cow WeAReVenom about the latest tweet from Sweeney.

Remain mad, that your precious yet to be released PS5 is beaten by an year old laptop.

I also noticed about removing my quote. No problem, I'll repeat again: For the 49th time where are the sources for GDDR is better than DDR for CPUs? Still waiting for it after two months.

Thank you for agreeing that next-gen yet to be released consoles are weaker than 2+ year old GPUs and one of them has been beaten by a year old laptop in UE5 demo.

For the 50th time where are the sources for GDDR is better than DDR for CPUs? Still waiting for it after two months.

Since you're claiming that I said anything that the Epic Engineer didn't say then fell free to quote this misinformation.

Mid range on launch. Low after 2 years. Very low for 5 more. He's gonna be playing on low-med/30 fps for 8 years lol.

Again lol.

I'm not sure how the claim was debunked. I'm also not discrediting the engineer. But there were many assumptions made off a fairly vague translation. But we will have more information soon enough.

I'm going to bookmark this. We have PC gamers saying the PS5 will be on par with a 2060. Lol!

Eh, i hope you are not refering to me, i was agreeing with Juub1990 about the mentioned 2080 Max Q's "performance" (or lack of)...

Here's a point I like to make.... Have no idea if its true but the rumors has it that Nvidia's RTX 3080 is using a 102 die instead of 104 or rumored "103" die. This means Nvidia is actually concerned enough about what AMD's upcoming RDNA 2.0 can do, and stepped it up and using better and less cut downed chips to compete or slaughter RDNA.

Also like point out that XSX's power supply is just using a two prong power cord like laptops. So its going to use less than 300w, this tells us that a system sporting a 3.6ghz Ryzen 7 zen 2 cpu with a gpu that has 52CU at 1.8ghz along with all the other items inside. This kinda tells us that AMD's power efficiency has really improved over their current gpus.... Its not to say its not going to a hot APU. But there is no reason not to believe in some degree that XSX is in the ball park of rtx 2080 level of performance at the very least.

The 2080Q delivering performance on par with the UE5 demo is false and was never said. This was a bunch of misquotes from people who misunderstood the feed.

You mean we have one guy @pc_rocks claiming that. The PS5's GPU if its clocks can even maintain 2GHz will stomp out the 2060. If it can sustain anywhere near 2.23GHz, it'll perform in the ballpark of a 2070S.

Funny how the only benchmark results we have has the XSX at "close to RTX 2080" performance... yet people are still claiming something different.

CU's don't scale 1:1 with performance increases, a 25% CU increase won't yeild a 25% perfomance boost.

Navi responds better to clocks and bandwidth better than CU count.

Look at a 5600 XT vs a 5700... Cap the bandwidth and you lose serious performance with the same CU count.

Then apply a overclock to a 5700 and a power mod and you can match a 5700XT with more CU's.

In addition to the fact that the XSX came close to a 2080 in the benchmark indicates pretty clearly that this is the case, a 52 CU Navi card should be 2080 Super levels of performance but its not.

Worst case scenario is will be 2070 Super performance and if the game is AMD optimised it can beat a 2080... Just like the X1X when it performed mostly at OC 580 levels and occasionally GTX 1070 levels.

A X1X has a GPU with more CU's than a RX 580/590 yet depending on the game matched them.

You most have confuse me with some blind fanboy who believe consoles are stronger than PC,maybe those tears in your eyes clouded your judgement.

So yeah it will be weaker than a 2 year old $1,200 GPU that not even 1% of the PC market owns according to steam own stats.

Stop deflecting you were shown the data you chose to ignore it that is your problem not mine.

I am not saying it is more than that,but a demo ported with minimal personal in short period of time is not a representation of what the machine can do.