Deleted member 239770And how is that concluded? It's all baseless speculation.

www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-rdna-4-news-release-date-price-rumors/

What are these "components" ?? LOL

the 4

Knight47I really like to know what kind of magic Sony uses that makes a €400 console outperform a €2000 gpu.

Console games are highly optimized as compared to PC because,
1. There are just a few hardware combination that a game developer needs to tweak for,

2. You don’t have a bunch of bloatware found on a general purpose OS that is contending for resources and running in the background.

Having said that, you can’t compare the price of a console vs PC directly. Consoles are generally sold at a lost, and the likes of Sony and MS makes money by taking a cut from games sold.

Knight47I really like to know what kind of magic Sony uses that makes a €400 console outperform a €2000 gpu.

Static hardware! Being able to develop for one specific hardware config can allow you to do a lot of low level stuff that you cannot easily replicate on PC.
For example: For MWII, infinity ward developed a software based solution for variable rate shading to run on the PS4, it's nuts.

They also have their own APIs to better leverage the hardware. I mean, look at a performance comparison for RT between a 6700 and a PS5, it's not even close.

Deleted member 239770Right so why would you not just buy the cheaper base PS5?

Folks this is a PS5 Pro news thread, not worth of PC gaming vs a console.

I have PS5, i instabuy PS5 Pro if there will be better resolution in games like FF7 Rebirth because performance mode is terrible (720p like).
No, i dont like to play in 30FPS, i want 60FPS with reasonable resolution, and most new games on consoles have insane low resolution in performance mode, new Alone in the Dark have as low as 450p on Series S, in 30FPS - which make me wonder why XBOX Series S exists.

Many games use old FSR2 upscaling on PS5 with some extreme ghosting, so new, possible HW based, upscaler included in PS API will be also nice.

theoutoStatic hardware! Being able to develop for one specific hardware config can allow you to do a lot of low level stuff that you cannot easily replicate on PC.
For example: For MWII, infinity ward developed a software based solution for variable rate shading to run on the PS4, it's nuts.

They also have their own APIs to better leverage the hardware. I mean, look at a performance comparison for RT between a 6700 and a PS5, it's not even close.

Fuck, the news comes out that RT only matters a lot when it's convenient on console, after DF made false claims to minimize RT on CP-2077, isn't it? How can you understand the context, or explain why otherwise a paltry 6700 is considered mediocre at the bottom, or are consolidated stereotypes brainwashing?

You're showing 50% as if it were the norm, but the real truth is that the PS5 goes less than 6700xt, which is a little higher.

Can you show me the average where the PS5 averages, or are you going to continue just extrapolating in your own way to the fort?

In practice you are saying that the PS5 normally produces the same as an RX-6900xt, even if the true average says that it struggles to reach the goal, leveraging the RT that if you put in a little an Nvidia a 2060 Super, dust it off, but perhaps you don't realize it.

It is the usual paradox of the presumed little (RT), which when it can be useful was used as a hatchet, but only there, because otherwise the PS5 could fare worse than a smooth 2060.

Would anyone be surprised by the neck that Nvidia demands on the marketing leverage game? No, maybe just you and a few others...
With that "logic" the consoles towards the RTs could be beaten to death. But you won't see it because you are short-sighted and functional to their marketing.

I don't know if you're a product of compulsive console marketing, but the fact is that you behave the same way.

Would you like the myriad of examples where the PS5 works more or less as it should in EU-4 games? No, and it's obvious, because otherwise you would have also added the tests where the PS5 sucks.

The truth is that - 1) that test is selected among the various ones that in general say that the PS5 performs less than a 2070, but it is clear that you are looking for the hairs that have tinkered with you in their own way, that is, in the wrong way.

You say it's okay, if I create the quadratic mean on One Piece Odyssey, where PS5 goes less than a smooth 2060? No, I already know, there you would say that they didn't optimize on PS5.

So, why do you tend to consider what you want on the famous CP-2077 even though it is from Nvidia? Because you're biased, and you probably don't even realize it.

Get out of the same manipulated three, which is and would be better...

What? Most of the things you said I never said. You extrapolated and assumed a lot.

Beginner Macro Device2023 onwards is the first time in the history you can spend $1000 and get a PC capable of 4K60 on reasonably lowered settings with some upscaling (occasionally aggressive to be brutally honest with you). A $2000 investment nets you at least some RT and no upscaling in most titles, also providing you with 4K144 experience even in recent titles. 2017, the age of praised Pascal, only provided you with a 4-core last-genish CPU alongside GTX 1060 or best case scenario 1070 if you had about ten Franklins and that already struggled with 1440p, 4K wasn't and isn't a thing for such GPUs. 2010? Even 1080p gaming was a total luxury.

Incorrect, I've been playing at 4K since 2014 on a R9 290, then a 980 and a 1080, you could've done that with some reduced settings and no upscaling on a $1000 PC, when the $699 1080Ti was released it was the first card that can do 4K60 with no reduced settings in most games and you can probably still incorporate it into a $1000 PC with older hardware.

Beginner Macro DeviceYeah, consoles became the same level more advanced. But first: console games are usually more expensive; second: you don't get graphical cutting edge if you're a console gamer; third: you can't upgrade your console; fourth: consoles aren't as good of a PC as a... *chuckles* PC. Hence the much lower price. You pay little for the device, a lot for the service. With the PC as a concept, it's quite the opposite.

You pay little for the device, a lot for the service on a console? Don't spread nonsense, first PS Plus is not mandatory, second its much cheaper than the hardware and can be shared with all users on the same console so that they can use it for free, plus it comes with additional benefits like free games which offsets the cost in the first place. And still even if you buy PS Plus for 5 years it'll still cost less than an equivalent PC.

alawadhi3000R9 290

I said, reasonably lowered settings, not in the very gutter.
www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-r9-290x-lightning/1.html
Across 15 games, there were only 5 you could play 4K60 on something that's not the lowest settings. To note: this GPU had already been tested with AA being disabled at 4K. Not much you can do about it.

alawadhi3000the $699 1080Ti was released it was the first card that can do 4K60 with no reduced settings in most games and you can probably still incorporate it into a $1000 PC with older hardware.

MSRP availability was close to zero. Usually, it was about 8 hundred a GPU.
Still, $300 for the rest of the PC is not ideal. DDR4 and SSDs cost yikes as much back then.

My point stands: what required the most advanced hardware and a lot of tweaking back then, now only requires a tick in the [DLSS] box. And, occasionally, turning settings down from Ultra to High or Medium.

alawadhi3000second its much cheaper than the hardware and can be shared with all users on the same console so that they can use it for free, plus it comes with additional benefits like free games which offsets the cost in the first place.

One AAA game is about 70 USD. So I buy 10 games, I pay more than for my console. These games are also not guaranteed to work on newer consoles. Much more so than the PC games which run on PCs 3 decades or more newer than them. Sharing with other users is also possible on a PC. Free games are even more possible on a PC. PC gaming also offers competitive market (EGS, GOG, Steam, you name it), a lot of games get discounted, occasionally given away. Not to advise it but yohohoeing is also easier on a PC.

Beginner Macro DeviceI said, reasonably lowered settings, not in the very gutter.
www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-r9-290x-lightning/1.html
Across 15 games, there were only 5 you could play 4K60 on something that's not the lowest settings. To note: this GPU had already been tested with AA being disabled at 4K. Not much you can do about it.

Techpowerup tests at max quality settings (minus AA for 4K), nobody ran AA at 4K at that point in time as it was mostly not needed, some people on 1440p even were disabling AA. Reducing setting from max/Ultra coupled with overclocking made the card fairly capable of 4K60ish in a lot of games.

Point still stands, 4K60 were doable in $1000 PCs since a few years not 2023.

Beginner Macro DeviceMSRP availability was close to zero. Usually, it was about 8 hundred a GPU.

Spoiler: And, y'know, inflation is a thing.

At launch maybe, but after a few weeks I'm pretty sure it was purchasable at MSRP, I got my ASUS 1080 Ti Poseidon (The expensive one with both aircooling and waterblock) for $880.

Even with adjusting for inflation a PC with a 980 or a 1080 was doable for 1000 (2023 USD).

Beginner Macro DeviceStill, $300 for the rest of the PC is not ideal. DDR4 and SSDs cost yikes as much back then.

My point stands: what required the most advanced hardware and a lot of tweaking back then, now only requires a tick in the [DLSS] box. And, occasionally, turning settings down from Ultra to High or Medium.

No need for DDR4 or SSDs, you could do with something like a 2500K/DDR3 and a small SSD for the OS. Yeah $300 for the rest of the system isn't ideal but was doable.

Yes things are easier now with DLSS but they were still doable a few years back.

Beginner Macro DeviceOne AAA game is about 70 USD. So I buy 10 games, I pay more than for my console. These games are also not guaranteed to work on newer consoles. Much more so than the PC games which run on PCs 3 decades or more newer than them. Sharing with other users is also possible on a PC. Free games are even more possible on a PC. PC gaming also offers competitive market (EGS, GOG, Steam, you name it), a lot of games get discounted, occasionally given away. Not to advise it but yohohoeing is also easier on a PC.

PC games aren't guaranteed to work on newer OS/hardware either, but we know that 99.9% they will, same for the consoles since the PS4 because hardware design wise they'll be the same (x86 CPU, AMD GPU ...etc), the only difference that I can think of is that the user can implement workarounds/hacks on a PC and not on a console where you'll be at the mercy of the developer releasing a patch to fix any issue.

alawadhi3000You pay little for the device, a lot for the service on a console? Don't spread nonsense, first PS Plus is not mandatory, second its much cheaper than the hardware and can be shared with all users on the same console so that they can use it for free, plus it comes with additional benefits like free games which offsets the cost in the first place. And still even if you buy PS Plus for 5 years it'll still cost less than an equivalent PC.

Hey man, i've been wanting to play Gravity Rush and Uncharted 1-3 for ages, is Sony finally giving them away for free?

Knight47Hey man, i've been wanting to play Gravity Rush and Uncharted 1-3 for ages, is Sony finally giving them away for free?

Both are available under PS classics so you need the top tier subscription (PS Plus premium or deluxe) to play them.

alawadhi3000Both are available under PS classics so you need the top tier subscription (PS Plus premium or deluxe) to play them.

I see, but subscribing for a year costs as much as a PS4 that can play games for free.

ToTTenTranzThe PS4 Pro had indeed twice the execution units of the PS4, but it would never get 2x performance in games because it only got a measly 24% increase in memory bandwidth.
Delta compression certainly helped, but not enough to make the 2x faster GPU scale linearly with 24% in bandwidth.

There are even some statements from devs saying the dev guides themselves claimed the PS4 Pro could never use its whopping 64 ROPs because it lacked the bandwidth to ever make use of them.


The "butterfly GPU" in the PS4 Pro wasn't really an optimal solution, and I guess this is one of the reasons why they're trying to do smarter with the PS5 Pro.

In general i agree, instead of PS4 Pro being in theory 2X+frequency difference =2.28X faster it's less, but the architecture of that era (GCN derivatives ) is known, even you cut in half the rops in the PS4 Pro the difference is 1.8X between a theoretical PS4 Pro with half the RBEs and a regular PS4.
Anyway, my main point is that the difference in performance between PS5 Pro and PS5 isn't very exciting after 4 years and i would like it to be (based also on the other specs) at same price as original PS5 ($499) although to tell you the truth I'm more concerned about acoustics, my limit of what i consider acceptable is around -2 decibels lower vs what PS5 is outputting.
Regarding statements as "PS4 Pro could never use its whopping 64 ROPs because it lacked the bandwidth to ever make use of them" and "this is one of the reasons why Sony are trying to do smarter with the PS5 Pro" i don't see Sony changing direction, the most probable scenario is PS5 Pro to have 128 RBEs imo based on the leaks (full chip has 64 CUs based on the leaks) so although the memory bandwidth upgrade between Pro/regular Playstation will be similarly low like in last gen we will probably have doubling of the RBEs again.

theoutoWhat? Most of the things you said I never said. You extrapolated and assumed a lot.

You were getting into a pretty clear conversation, and I was following you. You were making that Nvidia-sponsored bench count as an absolute test, useful for demonstrating optimization on consoles.
I had exactly that impression... I approximated the implicit.

If you don't like it, tell me why On Piece is worth nothing, before explaining to me why, if those performances on RT are worth nothing, why did you present them as demonstrators.

Didn't you say that PS5 in RT runs like a 6900xt? Well, if the unit of measurement is that, we're close, right?
Was the single test worth little? Then why did you show it as an axiom?

Marketing that walks through chatter, the short answer...
You could see 9 tests where the PS5 performs less than the 6700, yet one would be enough for you to support your induced thesis.
You can also change the name of the assumption, but the meaning remains the same.

f0ssileYou were getting into a pretty clear conversation, and I was following you. You were making that Nvidia-sponsored bench count as an absolute test, useful for demonstrating optimization on consoles.
I had exactly that impression... I approximated the implicit.

If you don't like it, tell me why On Piece is worth nothing, before explaining to me why, if those performances on RT are worth nothing, why did you present them as demonstrators.

Didn't you say that PS5 in RT runs like a 6900xt? Well, if the unit of measurement is that, we're close, right?
Was the single test worth little? Then why did you show it as an axiom?

Marketing that walks through chatter, the short answer...
You could see 9 tests where the PS5 performs less than the 6700, yet one would be enough for you to support your induced thesis.
You can also change the name of the assumption, but the meaning remains the same.

Throughout the rest of the linked DF video you can see the 6700 and PS5 trading blows, and I chose that specific video as the PS5 carries an almost identical GPU to that of the 6700, same architecture too, so no clue what you're even talking about with "nvidia sponsored".

It was just an example, and I provided the full video so curious people could see for themselves.
I never claimed that it performed like x or y, or that it can do Z, I simply said that static hardware allows developers to better use its capabilities, and pointed one example. Another example could be the longevity of the base ps4, a machine released in 2013 yet still capable or running games like MWII at 60fps and a decent resolution.

Feel free to disagree if you wish, but there is no need for aggressiveness, or remarks such as "nvidia-sponsored". I never even brought up Nvidia, I don't even use an Nvidia gpu.

theoutoThroughout the rest of the linked DF video you can see the 6700 and PS5 trading blows, and I chose that specific video as the PS5 carries an almost identical GPU to that of the 6700, same architecture too, so no clue what you're even talking about with "nvidia sponsored".

It was just an example, and I provided the full video so curious people could see for themselves.
I never claimed that it performed like x or y, or that it can do Z, I simply said that static hardware allows developers to better use its capabilities, and pointed one example. Another example could be the longevity of the base ps4, a machine released in 2013 yet still capable or running games like MWII at 60fps and a decent resolution.

Feel free to disagree if you wish, but there is no need for aggressiveness, or remarks such as "nvidia-sponsored". I never even brought up Nvidia, I don't even use an Nvidia gpu.

CP-2077 is DEFINITELY not the most suitable test for testing an AMD with RT. Then you tell me why DF tried to test with RT, when she is the first to advise against using that setting on consoles.
Is it clear now what Nvidia has to do with it? It is well known that CP-2077 is Nvidia's bench game, and it seems clear to me that the limits are not brought to consoles, right?

That example is the least indicative, it can also be understood very well from the rest of the tests, yet you underlined exactly that. Do you think it's difficult to understand why?

As I was saying, there are examples where the PS5 takes them from a 3060, particularly in UE-4-5 games. They are worth more than CP-2077 with the handbrake on RT on the AMD side, it's a shame that DF doesn't let you see them, it can only happen when compile stuttering can get in the way, so it only speaks for hate while minimizing the rest, as happened in FF-VII Remake, they didn't even mention the weight of the game minus the stuttering. If they had done that, you would have seen PS5 do poorly even in a game created exclusively.

Perception is spoiled by stereotypes, you can see from how you talk about much superior optimization regardless of why they are consoles.
It's no longer the same as before, both because the performance is now more directly comparable, and because in general it isn't even optimized like it used to be.

If PS5 takes them 9 times out of 10 from a 6700xt, a slightly higher range, isn't it the first thing to say that the exception is, if anything, due to the "unfortunate" case on PC? The usual arguments about the myriads of configurations are worth little, but very little, except for such exceptions. Do you see GPUs from neighboring bands and eras completely out of value compared to TPUs here too? No, more or less they always go as they should, in the sense that they maintain the expected distances. Did you know that this excludes the aforementioned leverage?

It is clear that on average there is a little more refinement on consoles, even if it is no longer like it used to be, and in generic engines they also risk paying a pledge, but that it is 50% less is simply false, and when one takes the crooked example makes me think of an invitation to partisanship.

Always look in their tests (I don't like them much, but if you take them...) how much a 4070 Super goes in relation to PS5:


PS5 is often placed as an average performance between a 2070 and a 2070 Super.
You will see that towards the 4070 Super they make more or less the same difference.
Is this already a more likely average test, or should we rely on the sponsors on PC...?
Where did the legendary discounted console optimization go? Did she go on holiday to the world of hopes...?

Now, to the partial tare, add Nvidia's well-known advantage in RT, and the no less important advantage in DLSS (you will see now that PS5-Pro comes out, DF's attention has already begun to embroider us).
After that, you should review what counts a GPU that in theory and in practice is 2 times better than PS5 + Extra for dessert.

I don't think I offended you, I reacted considering the above.
Below I have a 4070 Ti Super, I'm not speaking out of partisanship, but out of honesty.

That's a lot of more then 15-20%. That's more so around 40-45%. the 6700 isn't even better then 6650xt.

...and ofc GTA6!

watzupkenConsole games are highly optimized as compared to PC because,
1. There are just a few hardware combination that a game developer needs to tweak for,

2. You don’t have a bunch of bloatware found on a general purpose OS that is contending for resources and running in the background.

Having said that, you can’t compare the price of a console vs PC directly. Consoles are generally sold at a lost, and the likes of Sony and MS makes money by taking a cut from games sold.

Pre compiled shaders and adequate amounts of VRAM as well.

The issues with Series S I believe are mostly VRAM capacity related, same as PC issues.