So, how much difference is there between PS5 and Sex really?

I'm trying to actually find out how much difference their will between the 2. Tried reading the forums/other places but it's a Sh!t show tbh about comparing the two.

So how much do CU's matter, or is it speed or a combo?

Speed seems to be an important factor here comparing older GPU's when CU's are similar. Comparing the 5700 and XT version. There's 10fps gain for only 4 units and 100mhz increase. 1.5tflop increase for 10fps (@1440p). Doesn't seem like that's a whole lot. Which almost the same amount of difference between Xbox and Ps5.

Also I've heard flops don't necessarily matter either.

Cpu is .3ghz difference between the 2. In my experience OCing is not a huge gain but still noticeable non the less.

Then Cerny said that they removed the bottlenecks as much as they could. Does this mean that the mobo clock speed is increased as well, which could improve the system as a whole?

Then programing, won't that make a huge difference?

Or is this all just wait till release then compare and just judge pure performance?

*Still pretty amateur at this level. So it's appreciated for non trolling answers.

Maybe in end developers won't design games around SeX performance edge nor PS5's memory throughput advantage and performance will be close, maybe just to have parity and not alienate gamers on either side of the market, with maybe only exclusives left to demonstrate advantages of each.

That might mean as far as commercial performance goes, smaller factors might make a bigger difference along the way, like pricing, availability, marketing, game line-up, messaging, other perks that might entice gamers like Game Pass and PS Now, and the environment of gaming media and social networks. Any unintended complications on one console might also help the other, as has been case last two generations.

But yeah, trying to draw solid conclusions at this point would be premature. We'll need to wait and see. MS has two big SeX presentations planned in coming weeks. Sony will have to shed more light on their system in response. We might have bigger idea of what each might offer but even then, we won't know until these systems are in consumer hands.

Most likely not much of anything. At the end of the day gamers are not going to be gaming with the systems side by side. So, whether the difference is larger or smaller than anticipated, it doesn't really matter. If you bought a PS5 and it slower than the Xbox Series X, you would not know or experience the difference. Just like if you bought a Xbox Series X you would not know or experience the performance advantage. These differences mainly matter to hardcore fanboys or people who are going to purchase both. For everyone else, game on. :)

On paper, the Series X sounds like a heavier hitter. The PS5 is maybe better optimized/more efficient?

I'm a PS fan and am ok w/ that. The amazing games their studios have put out on PS4, and I'm using a base launch model, have been astounding. I think the games will be incredible, despite the tech in the box. I actually find the current graphics to be very good, just struggle with loading -- and it seems like that will be something no longer to contend with.

This is what happens when they only teach abstinence in health class

It's the smallest gap we have had in years. At the end if the day it will be the games that show what system is worth it.

Thirty Percent. At least.

Huge gap between the two. For example, a game could be a locked 60fps/4k on the sexbox, but only a dynamic 900p/42fps on the PS5. Its huge.

Sex?

This much (_|_)

25% difference.

In the end doesn't matter because it's the dev's who will create these games. look at switch with zelda not a graphical game yet it still sells tons and is fun to play. power is nothing because in the end there all just a box to play games on. it's the dev's who should get all the praise because without them we would have nothing to play.

that will not happen and it's not huge. look at pro and one x. one is 4k checker bored and one is 4k but there 2 teraflops difference but both run at same fps. it's not a huge difference. now from ps2 to ps5 now thats a huge difference.

there both going to have 4k/60 fps. there both are a huge jump from last gen not just series x. you guys at like they just added a ssd to the ps4 and called it ps5. there both going to bust out great graphics.

A butt?

But how wide is that butt?

You'll see a difference on 3rd party games...no matter how small. Both should run at 4k 60fps targeted, with xsx hitting the target more often.

That's if ps5 delivers as promised...we dont really know enough about how the power shift between cpu and gpu affects games, nor having less CUs and slower memory bandwidth.

PS5's SSD will load games around 5 seconds faster, but it's 175GB smaller...

not much.

The XSX has some advantages (GPU, CPU, peak memory bandwidth), the PS5 has some benefits (all ram at the same speed so more flexible without a penalty, higher bandwidth with the SSD), overall the XSX is the better package in terms of gaming ability but its not any sort of game changing difference.

any game that the XSX can run the PS5 can too. every graphical trick the XSX can pull off the PS5 can pull off (they have the same CPU and GPU architecture after all). we will probably just see a trend where the Ps5 version runs at a slightly lower res and maybe the number of rays cast for the ray tracing is a little lower and thats about it really.

Honestly I care about high FPS now. I think that's where you'll see the biggest difference between the two; in which of the two outputs and maintains the highest frames.

It's a smaller performance gap than PS4 vs Xbox One or, PS4 Pro vs Xbox One X.

PS5 is actually a synonym for sex

~Mark Horndog Cerny

@masonshoemocker: I wouldn't get your hopes up on a high FPS for most next gen games. We may see more of them during the cross gen period but as devs start to stretch out to fill the processing capacity of the new consoles they will drop the FPS to 30 to meet their other targets.

Most devs will have a preference for 4K (or as close as possible) 30FPS with the highest visual settings they can muster and the most accurate and detailed underlying simulations under the hood hammering the CPU. with stuff like DLSS (do the new consoles support something like that?) and temporal reconstruction/chequerboard rendering (and whatever new tricks they come up with next gen) they will also be happy to drop the native res below 4K and upscale rather than focus on 4K native to keep a stable-ish 30FPS.

The only way we will ever see, say, 60FPS as standard is if MS/Sony/nintendo demand that all games be 60FPS on their platforms and that is very unlikely to happen. No matter how powerful any console is, developers will find ways to fill it with work.

In terms of concrete numbers we don't know because not enough information is out there. In terms of actual and perceptible difference in games: almost nothing or negligible.

It depends on spec 18% on some peoples mind 50% more with 50% more raytracing and 200% more bandwidth.

In actual ingame performance probably minimal,on some fanboys minds 500%.

My main concern for the ps5 is the variable clocks. Listening to digital foundry, both the cpu and gpu can't be clocked that high at the same time. For cpu intensive games, the gpu will suffer and vice versa. This came as they talked to Mark Cerny. Developers also can't lock them like they can in the dev kits. They are both a great step up in technology from last gen though.

NO NO NO i think the dev's all want 60 but can't because of limitations. now we don't have that so im sure every game this next gen will be 60fps. 60 fps will be a standard this gen. and moving forward.

It wont, they will chase higher visuals rather than double the framerate

There are also instances I have noticed with the XB1X where I feel devs are too ambitious with hardware and problems arise by trying to maximize use of hardware, by contrast taking extra measures on a weaker systems limitations to achieve similar results ends up being more efficient. Ran across interesting article about games using lower quality resolution and polishing them through post-processing effects, checkerboard rendering, temporal supersampling and such, achieves better performance by limiting overhead and leaving resources to enhance visual fidelity more effectively.

Think the smart move is to wait a couple of months after release to know for sure. Probably won‘t mean too much in terms of enjoyment of games.

Buy both

Get all the power

Get all the games

The end

# realgamer

Sure kinglemming you surely convince us that you are a unbiased gamer.🙄

I don't think there will be CPU intensive games on this machines,one because at 4k CPU overhead is minimal,and second because this machines no matter the PR are not aiming for 120FPS in all its games.

And considering a jaguar still been use today i don't see how a 3.5ghz 16 core CPU would be bottleneck.

There's enough power that both CPU and GPU can potentially run at their limits of 3.5GHz and 2.23GHz, it isn't the case that the developer has to choose to run one of them slower."

Cerny also say this on the second DF article.

Saw the thread title, thought I'd accidentally wandered into the wrong part of the internet.

Nothing with the naked eyes, we'll be waiting for DF for the verdict.

But even then we won't see huge differences.

All in all, potent machines, with a little more power to the XsX.

Not the big deal some make out of it.

Right, the CPU and GPU can both run at those frequencies as long as the workload doesn't push the system past its power consumption or thermal limits. Ex. Cerny says a 10% frequency reduction reduces power consumption by 27%. That means the CPU could cap out at 90% usage for some period of time and give the GPU 27% more power ... "power" means workload over some period of time. I.e. It can relax the CPU's max threshold for some time (frames) and allow the GPU to crank out very high usage (lets say 100%) for a more extended period of time without compromising the system hitting its limits.

I think the general misunderstand is that games run at very high usage (90%+) against the CPU and, GPU all the time. That's simply not true ... you're asking for trouble if your game is running a 90%+ on the CPU *and* GPU at all time. It implies that your system is running at the same usage whether a character is walking down a hallway or just blew up 15 explosives barrels on screen. It also implies that every action in game is creating equally high amounts of workload for both the CPU and GPU. That isn't true.

Yes, you want a high performance ceiling on the CPU and GPU for those frames that require peak performance but, games are pretty much *never* using very high (90%+) CPU *and* GPU usage at the exact same time ... and functioning well. lol

How much difference is there between PS4 and sex?

PlayStation 4 Is the Most Popular Pornhub Console

PS5 > Sex

Your argument is effectively current-gen gameplay with better graphics instead of Ashes of the SIngularity level NPC count.

The XSX is going to be a lot more powerful, why do you think Sony overclocked the PS5 at the last minute? Does the difference matter? Yes it will but it depends. Even the PS5 is miles better than the X1X, it's not even close. This is a new gen, no joke. The PS5 may be gimped compared to the XSX but it's going to look next gen compared to the last gen consoles running the same games. It's not a bad console the PS5, it's just a lot worse than the XSX. Just like an RTX 2060 is not a bad card but a 2080 is a lot better. Again, the 2080 being a lot better does not mean the 2060 is not an awesome card and great buy that consumers will love.

how do you quantify "a lot better"?

Probably pretty similar for multiplat devs. It doesn't really matter that much, look how good uncharted 4 looked on a standard PS4. What matters are the games and Halo/gears/Forza just doesn't cut it anymore for most people

Both 5700 and RX 5700 XT have the same 448 GB/s memory bandwidth with 24.67% TFLOPS difference. Due to cost consideration, AMD didn't scale memory bandwidth with TFLOPS increase. Finance beats engineering.

Expect PC's RX 6700 XT RDNA 2 refresh to sport faster memory modules e.g. 256 bit GDDR6-15500 with 496 GB/s.

From PS5 baseline, XSX backs it's 18.2% TFLOPS difference with up to 25% memory bandwidth difference.

From RX 5700 XT baseline, XSX backs it's 25.75% TFLOPS difference with up to 25% memory bandwidth difference.

From https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-inside-xbox-series-x-full-specs

but there was one startling takeaway - we were shown benchmark results that, on this two-week-old, unoptimised port, already deliver very, very similar performance to an RTX 2080.

Scale RX 5700 XT's 9.66 TFLOPS** into XSX's 12.147 TFLOPS and it lands on RTX 2080 class level i.e. 50 fps

**Based from real-world average clock speed for RX 5700 XT from https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/34.html

12.147 / 9.66 = 1.25745 or 25.745%, hence XSX GPU has ~25.75% extra TFLOPS over RX 5700 XT.

Gears 5's ranking follows

Apply 1.25 on RX 5700 XT's 122% and it would land on 152.5‬% which is between RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Super.

XSX GPU solution is ~25% superior over RX 5700 XT in TFLOPS, texture mapper, texture filtering, on-chip SRAM storage, and memory bandwidth.

where did you get 30%?

As my example shows, there's a difference between the 5700 and the XT of 1.5tflops. So how would the difference be so much?

The difference is like RTX 2080 Super vs RTX 2070 overclocked to 2.23 Ghz.

RTX 2080 Super FE has 11.78 TFLOPS with 496 GB/s memory bandwidth. MSI's RTX 2080 Super Gaming X has 12.1 TFLOPS.

RTX 2070 at 2.23 Ghz OC has 10.275 TFLOPS with 448 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Mark Cerny warns against 256-bit AVX workloads in his presentation.

Using 128-bit SSE4 reduces SIMD math co-processor energy usage.

I bet you're right handed lol.

So at the same resolution you will only see a difference of 10-15fps? That's not a huge difference. Devs could tweak the visuals ever so slightly lower on the ps5 and you wouldn't see a difference at all.

@npiet1: Ok, the debate is silly and these numbers are all fluff at the moment......but....10-15 frames is a huge difference. That’s a clearly noticeable difference you can see with the naked eye. Especially when the frames dip.

It's a huge difference if it's 45 vs 60, but it's not when it's 60 vs 75. Really depends on the initial frames target I guess, but then a small dip in Visuals would keep the FPS similar.

@npiet1: If the game was running at 60fps it may run at 52 fps on PS5. You will get no where near 15fps unless the game was running at well over 60fps on both consoles.

So it's pretty safe to say, that the difference between the 2 is barley going to be noticed.

Against PS5, it's more than 18.21% difference when Sony added extra GPU TFLOPS on the same 448 GB/s memory bandwidth as RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT.

RX 5700 XT stock and RX 5700 XT factory overclock with the same 448 GB/s memory bandwidth are already showing diminishing returns relative to RX 5700's 7.7 TFLOPS.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asrock-radeon-rx-5700-xt-taichi-oc-plus/33.html

This RX 5700 XT Taich OC has 1996 Mhz average, hence 10.219 TFLOPS.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asrock-radeon-rx-5700-xt-taichi-oc-plus/27.html

For XSX's estimate, apply 1.25 on RX 5700 XT's 96% lands on 120% which is RTX 2080 level.

The difference could reach 20% when 448 GB/s memory bandwidth bottlenecks are factored in.

At 120 fps at 4K and 18.21% difference

XSX has 120 fps

PS5 has 101.5 fps

At 60 fps at 4K and 18.21% difference

XSX has 60 fps

PS5 has 50.7 fps

At 60 fps at 4K and 20% difference due to 448GB/s memory bandwidth bottleneck

XSX has 60 fps

PS5 has 48 fps

The difference could reach 21% when GPU clock speed is reduced by 1%.

AMD needs to spec-up RX 5700 XT with GDDR6-15500 or GDDR6-16000 rated modules.

https://videocardz.com/newz/msi-outs-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-gaming-z-with-16-gbps-gddr6-memory

GDDR6-16000 already being shipped, hence pushing GDDR6-15500 into a lower tier.

4K resolution render targets will need the highest memory bandwidth for the money.