Even though the PS5 has a significantly faster SSD than the Xbox Series X, the 12 teraflop vs 10.3 Teraflop advantage of the XSX counts for way more.
Look at how PCIe SSDs on PC do not give noticeable speed improvement for gamers over a SATA SSD. (4900MB/s vs 500MB/s)
Other urls found in this thread:
cope
Everyone knows this.
>the hardware which actually matters for 3d graphics and performance counts for more than the storage
woahhh.
but honestly everyone already realizes this even the damage controlling fanboys. games will perform better on the xbox.
>He made the thread again
Fucking lol cope harder bro
Lmao this is such cope. Xbox SeX I superior. I trust and stand with science.
Because PC games are developed with 80% of steam users still using HDDs in mind. Even when next gen hits, 3rd party games will be held back by PC, so will XBOX "exclusives". Only Sony exclusives will actually feel like next gen games because they dont have to take those old ass HDDs into account and can design games around the high speed SSDs speed. How can pc fags which call themself tech savvy not understand this simple technical fact?
Lmao what? Nobody designs PC games for lower spec than consoles unless it's indieshit.
SInce you can run PC games with HHDs, yes they are brainlet. If they were designed around SSDs you wouldnt even be able to run them with HDDs.
Vast majority of pc plays on shit worse than consoles
>not understand this simple technical fact?
>simple technical fact
Did you think about this post before you made it, or just vomit words into the box?
Game dev here. PC fag, don't really care about which console is better.
At this point in time it's already possible to have photo realistic graphics, an extreme amount of models and still maintain a high fps count. You can basically do anything perfectly except for some super complex simulations like "real" water.
Recently even ray tracing in real time has become possible.
So, what is causing low fps and bad performance besides shitty optimization?
Every game has a loading sequence, even if it is hidden from the player.
Elevators, tight passages, cutscenes, etc. are used to hide them.
Big maps that don't seem to have loading screens tend to be split up in multiple streaming levels which get loaded in at certain trigger points like the examples above.
Those levels can't be too big or the loading wouldn't be fast enough unless you use a literal loading-screen with a bar/percentage. They can't be too small either, or you'd have to be constantly loading those smaller levels from storage (your HDD/SSD)
and you'd constantly have to go through a hidden loading screen. Unless those levels are preloaded earlyer. But you obviously can't have your entire game preloaded. You'd run out of memory (cache).
So you have to have fairly big levels preloaded, and your GPU has to render all of that stuff (There are things like mipmaps and LODs, but i'm gonna ignore those right now).
Cont.
...because consoles are still using HDDs, dumbass. Consoles set the minimum requirements always. Nobody has ever downgraded a console game because of russians using toasters.
An example for preloaded levels and their usage:
Jedi fallen order, at the beginning in the train. You go through the train, reach a locked door. Turn around and you are suddenly somewhere completely different. Turn around again and the locked door is now a wall. That is achieved by preloading all of those
levels/scenes and just making them visible/invisible on demand (when you can't see the switching).
Now, what would happen if you could achieve that effect without preloading? You could make a room, with 4k textures and lots of models that runs at 4k@120fps. You go through a door, that level is unloaded and a different room is loaded directly without having to
preload it. It appears as if everything is already there. So you could just chain room after room. Obviously it doesn't have to be a closed off room. In an open world, you can just have a low res map where you can see miles ahead
and only properly load and display the chunk (room) you are currently in.
With current hdd/ssd speeds the only way to maintain performance but still have crowded levels with a lot of actors in a single level, is a better GPU that can render all of that stuff and more ram to handle streaming levels. (Xbox approach).
Or you put those actors in a lot of smaller levels that get loaded when it's neccessary. That way you free up a lot of memory and gpu power for what's important at the current time. (Sony approach)
Cont.
TL;DR
Xbox will be better at rendering bigger levels with a lot of stuff going on. But you will have loading sequences out of your ass and the levels can't be too big or you'd have long loading times and low fps.
PS5 will have no loading (basically) and the same level sizes by splitting them up in smaller chunks that get unloaded when out of view, resulting in better performance, with a weaker (cheaper) gpu. Most likely on par, if not better than xbox. Depending on optimization.
TL;DR TL;DR
Xbox fast.
PS5 faster if done right. Otherwise no. (Also, a lot of porting issues. PCs don't have that ssd speed (yet) for example.)
>Muh teraflops
That's not even the largest advantage of the Xbox. The memory bandwidth disparity is even higher.
But where are the games
>PCs dont have that SSD speed yet
lol
we aren't living on a socialist world yet homie
So, what's the price, bucko?
Conzoomer grade, retard.
consolefags with that quick 420 nocope
t. pajeet
>games
Look at this dood
Why bother with an Xbox when you can get a PC? Everything going multiplatform ends up on PC anyway. Your "SeX box doesn't even let you mod.
>not even out yet, so the "(yet)" is still true
>Will probably cost over $5000
The Xbox One X doesn’t even consistently run games better than the Pro, but let’s sit here and pretend marketing terms like teraflops will be definitive of anything next gen. If you care that much buy a fucking PC. The Xbox won’t have shit for games anyway.
Just a reminder that the ps5 will have proprietary storage...look how that worked out for the vita
but its the same with sony systems?
at this point only nintendo holds onto exclusives.
are you pretending to be dumb or really this dumb?
The only game I'm aware of which runs worse on X1X than PS4 Pro at the same settings is Ace Combat 7.
>I'M BEGGING YOU DON'T BUY THIS
neck yourself. anyone can buy whatever they want. stop trying to deflect to pc all the time when clearly not everyone wants a pc. there are probably more posters here with only ps4's but i don't see you telling them to buy a pc.
It's not even a good example because Digital Foundry even pointed out in their video that the issue shouldn't have happened because Xbone X has a better pixel fill rate than PS4 Pro so it was either a problem in the Unreal 4 pipeline or Project ACES just didn't fix the stutters and shipped.
pathetic
Where did they say that? They said you could buy offf the shelf SSD storage for expanded storage.
Thanks for your posts dev-user.
>But you will have loading sequences out of your ass and the levels can't be too big or you'd have long loading times and low fps.
Bullshit, 4GB/s is plenty of IO bandwidth for streaming. You won't need to load shit.
>XFaggot COPE
tasty
I was talking about possibilities to get better performance. Of course streaming and preloading will still be utilized. A hybrid solution will be ideal for the best performance.
You're welcome
>Yas Forums tries into technology
Faster SSD is important on PS4. Couple seconds faster loading really adds up over the course of a "playthrough" of the latest 1st party moviegame.
this is fucking bullshit. there is absolutely no way in hell the ps5 will run a game better at identical resolution and settings as the xbox. no way at all. lay off the fucking crack.
>45 minutes long
>vague title
>description starts with an ad
gonna file this under "fuck off"
oh no..
Screencap it. I guarantee the PS5 will have better performance in games that are made with the architecture in mind (first party, exclusives).
The question is how it will handle "standard" (ported) games. I imagine it will be 1080p @ 60fps for normal games with worse performance the higher the resolution. But if it's a game specifically made with the PS5 in mind, then I wouldn't be surprised if it can handle 4k@60fps if not more.
>better performance in games that are only on it
is this the power of sony drones
POWER OF THE CELL all over again
>xzoomers screenshot literally whos on twitter to cope
Cope
that's a moot argument because obviously if a game is built specifically for the hardware it will run well e.g. the cell. that doesn't overcome the fact the xbox is significantly more powerful. multiplats will run better on xbox and xbox first party games will also look better than ps first party games. that's a fact of reality.
and you think a shity fucking console SSD (the entire console will not cost more than 500$) will be faster than that user? Maybe if Sony sell the console at 1k $
Those games can still be mulitplatform or timed exclusives. The key sentence is "made with ps5 in mind". You can still make games for all platforms but have a target platform you are mainly developing for. Modern engines make tasks like that extremely easy by basically having a "You want this game exported for X platform?" option.
>Look at how PCIe SSDs on PC do not give noticeable speed improvement for gamers over a SATA SSD. (4900MB/s vs 500MB/s)
This was covered you retard
which console is more powerful?
The PS5 is much faster and more efficient. The power advantage on the xbox is wiped out by the superior components in the PS5
thanks for the free screen cap. i'll be sure to spam it once the benchmarks come out
I never claimed that PS5 is more powerful. I'm not trying to say that one is better than the other. What I am saying though, is that sonys approach is a lot better for the future of video games than microsofts. How long do you think will GPUs get better and better? At some point your entire system is going to bottleneck the GPU. We have enough ram, we have enough cpu power, we have enough storage and enough gpu power. What we're lacking is high end consumer grade SSDs.
Good argument zoomer
no one gives a shit about the future of gaming we live in the present and that present doesn't rely on how fast your SSD is. by the time super fast SSDs become mainstream we'll be entering the 10th gen. ray tracing is going to be the game changer this coming gen. everyone is going all out on RT including nvidia. sony fucked up their priorities that's all there is to it. having a fast SSD is nice but not nice enough to compromise the GPU, CPU and memory bandwidth. MS made literally the most perfect and balanced machine.
cope
Utterly mindbroken and devastated. This gen will be extremely painful to snoys and I can't fucking wait.
Also, I forgot to mention, you are right by saying that games that are made for ps5 are gonna run better on it. However, if we would shift the development process of games to sonys idea of streaming and loading for all systems, we wouldn't need to upgrade our GPUs anymore. At least very rarely. You'd only have to upgrade your SSD speed. We have already achieved hyper realism. Just need a fast enough way to load it.
Not true. Ray tracing is still in its very early stages. Just like VR, and that's been out for a few years now. The only benefit of ray tracing for consumers is "better reflection and lighting" which is not a compelling argument considering the performance cost. On the dev side on the other hand it's a blessing and makes the lighting process much faster and easier.
If you own a normal 1080, you can run most of the current games on ultra settings. A better gpu, cpu or more ram is pointless if developers stick to the level loading and streaming approach they are currently using.
I hope it's a board troll. If PC gamers here had a choice between faster GPU or a faster SSD it'll be the GPU that gets picked.
What's an SSD gonna do if you wanted to emulate PS2/PS3/WiiU games? Fuck all, at least the better GPU will let you flex more anti aliasing/higher resolution/stable performance. Emulating is still CPU bound but having GPU bells and whistles >>>> SSD. I have 120SSD and 1TB HD PC build, I've never felt a game needed an SSD to improve performance. The only thing I'll buy next gen is a new GPU, you're deluded if you think SSD are your savior.
>FF7 Remake Part 1 PS4 is 100GB not including obvious bloated future patches
Many games have no compression and Sony couldn't even hit 1TB of SSD due to the fact SSD have been expensive for the past 15 years (nearly 2 decade old tech is paraded by Sony fanboys as game changers, lol), it's not worth limiting your PC build with an expensive SSD. You build a PC with the primary OS and some room for a few things for a budget SSD then go nuts on the rest of the build.
A build of GTX 660, 1TB HD > GTX 460 1TB SSD.