And the VRS from Microsoft is actually quite different from the VRS found elsewhere... bundled with SFS and Velocity Architecture will create visuals that are absolutely crazy.. rivaling top end PC crazy just from a trick and really puts the whole 8K gaming into perspective... time will tell.

@echo folks are taking this real personal but it’s the meat and potatoes... hardware is only as good as its software that helps it communicate.

Nothing is taken personally. I'm just stating a fact that VRS is already under Khronos's roadmap: https://www.phoronix.net/im... . VRS isn't some secret sauce feature that you're making it out to be. Saying that it's different if you don't name those specific differences doesn't help with your credibility either.

And you do know that Velocity Architecture only addresses decompression and coherency. You need to also remove the bottlenecks of memory mapping, file I/O, and check-in in order for the system to actually take advantage of the boosts from decompression and SFS (MS's coherency solution).

@Echo_

That's a rumor. Just like the 9TF PS5 rumors. Come back with solid evidence and stop constantly regurgitating a lack of information as confirmation of nothing.

Features are of course able to be added, and probably will. However, at this moment AMD literally said that those are all features of RDNA 2 and share the same architecture between the consoles. The console GPU's are custom but are still full fledged RDNA 2 chips with all the current features, because that's part of what makes them RDNA 2 chips. And, of course they will technically be custom chips so that they will be embedded on the motherboard, maintain a tighter integrated system with lower power draw, and because the physical cards aren't being produced yet. Any implementation into hardware like this is obviously custom. Not custom because they have to specifically request a *CORE* RDNA2 feature. You can't spin them having custom chips on me. I'm not stupid. To push what you're peddling you have to ignore the obvious truth that RDNA 2 is RDNA 2.

@i3eyond the Circle

This is assuming Sony didn't work on VRS at all, which is a rather dubious claim. And as I already stated, since Khronos is already working on VRS (they already got RT to Vulkan), I doubt GNMx won't have VRS.

@i3eyond the Circle

Microsoft makes DirectX. Obviously, DXR is exclusive. But, it's just an implementation. The creators of RDNA 2 are not using Microsoft's VRS or API as a core technology. RDNA 2 is hardware and driver related. Microsoft's DirectX, VRS, or API's are not baked into RDNA 2 in any way. They are only methods and products that take advantage of what is already there with RDNA 2. Any demonstrations using any Microsoft developed product with RDNA 2 are just that. Demonstrations. Obviously, RDNA 2 benefits from partnerships with companies, especially the one that has DirectX and the largest advertisement budget, in order to market, provide optimization on the PC side, and challenge NVidia who has always had the edge in this game.

When you stated DXR as a feature, it was stated again when you said DX12 Ultimate. That is a feature of DX12 Ultimate. RayTracing is a part of RDNA 2 hardware. DX12 Ultimate is the application that takes advantage of what is already implemented on the hardware side.

You're taking Sony's lack of spilling all the information as a lack of features. They don't care about Microsoft's advertisement budget, their reliance on constant use of buzzwords and technical terms, and distracting from the core problems of their platforms. They even rebranded DX 12 as DX Ultimate. It's all advertisement and PR. Sony doesn't play this game.

You do know that DirectX is just software right? Microsoft has done nothing hardware related for AMD. Sony confirmed accelerated Ray-Tracing months ago. Other API's will take advantage of the features of RDNA 2.

I don't think you understand how GPU architecture works, the difference between hardware and software implementations, or how important it is that RDNA 2 is consistent between both consoles(AKA a common architecture as AMD stated). A common architecture means the same level of hardware functionality which means PC support will be far better implemented for these features, and it's extremely important for the major box to support this for the developers to take advantage and adopt it more often on PC. AMD isn't holding out on the PS5. That's a ridiculous lie and nothing but spinning and ignoring what makes RDNA 2 what it is.

It's hilarious how Microsoft's desperation to push advertisement for Direct X, calling it Ultimate, pushing to hype up all the features that RDNA 2 has allowed it to have, and getting it into your minds has been so easy. They're pushing all this information not because it's exclusive to them in any way. It's because Vulkan has been getting more and more popular and is simply better and more approachable to console development API. Vulkan is more similar to what PS5's API would be. They're trying to get developers attracted to DX to prevent Vulkan's popular growth, which will hamper XBox slightly and improve PS5 software development(even though it doesn't use Vulkan as far as we know, the language is much more similar and not proprietary like DX). Calling it "Ultimate" is a joke in the PC space. You're just showing your lack of knowledge of the subject.

Nice wall. But I’m betting in its entirety there was no answer besides you comparing DX to Vulkan which automatically means PlayStation will have it (when Sony themselves have given no inclination) so that’s poof gone.

If it was optimized AMD would’ve demonstrated with such or at least ya know... said something about it at least once in an interview or slide..

Instead you have them showcasing their RDNA2 utilizing Microsoft’s platforms because they know that’s where it will work best. It’s been in the making for years and there’s a paper trail that shows that. From patents to interviews. DX12 and the techniques Microsoft have made are what AM

I mean what are we talking about here... do you believe that Microsoft’s use of RDNA2 hardware won’t actually be better since they are working so close with AMD? You think Vulkans RT will be more optimized than DXR?

Everything you’re saying is out of “hopefully it’s true because it can be if they do it” and that can apply to anything... yet you really don’t know if they will or if it will be as good.

Take a break Rainslacker.

Weren't you the one saying that the higher clocks of the PS5 would prove the superior GPU??? Even in DF's own test when they overclocked an RTX5700 and compared it with a 5700 TX of the same clocks as PS5 vs SX, they higher clocks not only lost, but was only able to manage a few more frames...nothing noticeable.

@i3eyond the Circle

You're making a lot of assumptions of Sony's inaction and ignoring what Khronos is doing, and now just repeating what you already said as if repetition magically makes your point stronger. Spoiler: It doesn't.

DirectX is an API, not hardware. The only part of VRS that is "exclusive" on the XSX is Microsoft's implementation of it. However, Khronos is doing theirs and Sony may be doing theirs, as well. Heck, it is possible that 3rd party devs prefer to go with Vulkan over DirectX considering that it is a cross-platform and cross-vendor API.

@timotim

You claim to understand GPU hardware, but don't even understand TDP.. While maxing out the cards potential on a far less optimized system. Rewatch the video. In several scenes the high overclock increased performance directly in line with the clock speed increase, until it reached tougher scenes. But, the obvious tell that it was bottlenecked by TDP was, well that the card couldn't be overclock any further. Which means they won't get a consistent performance increase when the card is no longer receiving appropriate power for what it's trying to do. lesser improvement when pushed to the max speed they could get. This becomes an easy tell when the heavy scenes come into play. The card was at its limit. The PS5 GPU is designed to do what it does. It's not an accurate comparison. Ah, and where are the full benchmark FPS average comparisons?

We don't know how far the PS5 GPU core clock is from being maxed out. If you're so close to the max TDP of the card and can't overclock further then it's not fully utilizing the entire hardware with the amount of power it's able to provide, until you push it to draw too much and not function properly at all. You might want to rewatch the PS5 conference. It's designed to run at that speed. It's not bottlenecked. In the case that it requires more resources such as power, it has access to it. The Smartshift feature. The clock speed it is designed for will have direct impact and accurate performance increase. It's not like the 5700 in the video where it can't possibly be pushed any further. Until we get the hardware in our hands, we can't say that it doesn't do what it's designed to do. No one on these comments is sitting here telling you the XBox can't do something that it's confirmed to do or should be able to do. But, we have the opposite happening for PS5. All these accounts pummeling the same story into each comment section. The PS5 has RDNA 2. It has these features. AMD confirmed these are a part of the RDNA 2 architecture.

I'm not saying the PS5 will be a better GPU. I'm saying it will not really matter at the end of the day. They will basically be the same because the GPU does have its way to catch up on performance in a direct method, and will be simpler for developers to code for. While XBox's GPU design directly improves TFlop numbers, it's going to perform basically the same for gaming as the PS5. Then we have the entire audio processed separately and allowing the PS5 GPU full freedom to focus on the graphics. There will be no difference between the two platforms, at least in multiplatform titles.

They didn't show the same clock speeds in the comparison. They were well under the PS5 clock speed while maxing the cards TDP giving it diminished returns, and had the XT clock speed slightly higher than the Series X. Also, not the comparable amount of CU's.

@i3eyond the Circle

- "But I’m betting in its entirety there was no answer besides you comparing DX to Vulkan which automatically means PlayStation will have it (when Sony themselves have given no inclination) so that’s poof gone."

Hmm. Nope. I stated myself that PS5 does not have Vulkan as far as we know. Don't bother talking if you won't bother reading. It's a place of discussion. If you want to report then create your own articles or blog. Oh, and it's quite obvious that you skimmed a few words and then decided to write your comment. That's quite pathetic. This is the same logic that made you grasp a few keywords and make false claims and state misinformation previously.

- "RDNA2 utilizing Microsoft’s platforms because they know that’s where it will work best."
What platform should they prioritize RDNA 2 for? Apple? Linux? Should they not compete against NVidia by fixing their issues with poor software support while developing the hardware for their console? How do you know that RDNA 2 will work best with DirectX? Oh, because the vastly larger company, one of the top companies in the world, with one of the biggest advertisement budgets in the world, showed a demonstration first. They have such a large budget. They must make everything perfect and unbeatable. But, wait.. Why does Vulkan, an open source, royalty free, and made from a non-profit group, beat DirectX in every game that it's implemented in? Huh.. So strange. Oh, wait. Look at the pretty slides

- "You think Vulkans RT will be more optimized than DXR?"
I don't know what to think. I understand that neither product is out, but that both are good, and that Vulkan defeats DX in basically every product it's implemented in. It generally is far more optimized than DX so why would that change now? You do know that RayTracing isn't rocket science, right? DXR isn't magic and it's merely providing RayTracing capability from the DX API. I also stated PS5 doesn't use Vulkan as far as we know. I simply brought up Vulkan to mention that DirectX hasn't even outperformed it despite being Microsoft developed on a Microsoft developed Operating System. Other API's are at least as equal to Direct X, and better in many ways because of how convoluted DX has gotten. At the end of the day. DirectX doesn't matter in a console comparison, never has, never will. The techniques are available on all platforms. They aren't needed from any specific provider.

Yeah thats you! The same guy that was bragging about not having to wait until the fall to play a AAA exclusive on his platform of choice...you were wrong about that, and you're wrong about the GPU...it is weaker.

@timotim

"you were wrong about that, and you're wrong about the GPU...it is weaker."

Hmm. In TFlops it sure is. We don't know about real-world performance. Even Digital Foundry has a video on TFlops and how they aren't accurate, yet suddenly you care for their terrible comparison on different SKU's without even matching the clock speeds of the consoles, and when one of the cards TDP is maxed out and unable to clock any higher, which means there are constraints on the card. Funny. When I mentioned that the only metric for gaming performance that XBox has before, and how we only know of the TFlops, you asked me where you ever mentioned TFlops. Like you didn't want to acknowledge that you were using a number that isn't accurate for real world application.

In our last conversation you said: "When did I mention TFs??? I said more power allows devs to push the box further. 100% true."

So, you pretend like we don't know what metric for power you were reading originally by asking when you had mentioned TFlops.. Are you hearing yourself? You're inconsistent. You tried to talk to me about technical GPU information but it was severely lacking clarity and equal comparison. You mention A and B, the easy things to read because you applied the console GPU specs that everyone's heard of, but refuse to look at C - Z. You try to sound smart by scratching at the surface but you're just pretending and exploiting basic knowledge and industry terms you've read in an article to hold up some sort of appearance you like to have, which makes sense since you appear everywhere on this site.

Notice I didn't say the PS5 GPU is better. But, it's going to be just as good realistically. One GPU has raw power, which can perform well in a console environment but won't deliver on all of its performance since the games likely will not require all the CU's it has. The other is straight up more efficient and slightly behind on raw performance. That also has all audio processed elsewhere which alone can make up for the difference in performance. XBox has a heavier OS and DirectX more than likely will not be a lower level API than Sony's. That's just how it is since DirectX is more convoluted.

Go ahead and disprove my GPU statements from before. I'll await specific statements explaining any inaccuracies I may have, rather than more rhetoric and glossing over information. Why don't you get technical anymore? Didn't have fun last time? When I entertained you and got deeper in depth you just ignored it like they don't exist and murmured the same half truth again, like I won't fact check you and explore the reasons behind it. It wasn't CU's improving the performance that much. It helped, but was easily the GPU core count. If you want another technicality. The performance scaling wasn't linear with the CU core count. Now, since GPU core count and speeds are absolutely linear with few exception, it's easy to tell the CU's on the card were diminishing returns. Do you understand what I mean by linear? In real world performance, every 5% increase in clock speed and GPU core count will basically give the equivalent 5% performance increase in I know that when I start commenting on this site that I can comment quite a lot. But, they aren't randomly selected. I'm not going to reply if my words don't hold water. If you respond and show me where I'm wrong than I'll be glad to have learned something. But, I just see too much squabbling.