Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado un mensaje como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
scaling 1080p-1440p to 4k, and anywhere between, even down to 720p or lower
In raw specifications, the GPU of the PlayStation 5 Pro could be between the performance of a 7700 XT and a 7800 XT (and there's the better ray tracing performance to factor in), but what does it matter? PC games aren't console games, so this isn't 1:1 anyway.
Your RTX 3080 Ti is fine until either next console generation and/or you run into a situation where you want more performance.
It's exactly as you said, a 1:1 performance isn't easy.
For gaming, latency usually wins out over bandwidth, but keep in mind the consoles use an APU so there's also a GPU in the equation using that bandwidth for the GPU/VRAM purposes. It's not "just" system RAM.
For example as one difference too, the console CPUs make other cuts, such as to the register size (PlayStation) and even cache (Xbox) and as it turns out, it didn't matter much since what they cut usually didn't matter for games all that much.
The actual CPU of the consoles (called an "AMD 4700S") was released as a "desktop kit" with the CPU soldered to a board. Surprisingly...
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-4700s-desktop-kit-review-ps5-cpu
...It actually performs pretty poorly in games on a PC, losing to even the first generation Ryzen 7 1800X, let alone something like the 3700X. You're still dealing with differences on a hardware/software level when operating in a PC ecosystem fashion, as well as games not being 1:1. The higher memory latency and the PCI Express 2.0 x4 limit between the CPU and any connected dedicated GPU seems to hurt it a lot (which you might argue makes this a poor 1:1 despite being the actual CPU the consoles use, and I'd agree). In some synthetics, it sometimes fares a bit better (an example of why not to take synthetics for a replacement of real world average performance).
If you're trying to translate to a "I want to match it as reasonably close without having massively less performance in most cases" and just focusing on the CPU (not the RAM for GPU purposes), I would say the 3700X does seem to be that point (if you focus on common desktop CPUs anyway) so I get why people use that as the point of comparison. But it's all opinion and a degree of speculation since these are never easy to compare 1:1.
I agree, but I also think it depends on the game. Others may not know that the PS5 has a dedicated chip for data decompression called Kraken. PCs don’t have such a solution, so the CPU needs to decompress data, or the GPU with Direct Storage.
If a game has data streaming, it can make a big difference. For example, The Last of Us absolutely obliterated my Ryzen 3950x in some places, and in this specific game, it really felt under-spec compared to consoles. It was a painful stutter fest. Some may say it’s bad optimisation, but developers can’t add hardware decompression to PCs.
The decompression hardware, paired with all consoles being the same (which means shaders can be made precompiled instead of having to be computed before or during runtime like on PCs), is just another example of that. It's why shader compilation/traversal stutter is sometimes less pronounced on consoles. You can throw all the CPU and SSD speed you want at that on the PC side and you'll still often deal with it.
As for the Ryzen 3000 series, it was really a success overall in how it let AMD continue to better compete with Intel, but one of its noteworthy shortcomings was that each CCD (6 or 8 cores each) had a pair of CCXs (3 or 4 cores each), and this added latency when crossing those core counts. Gaming is pretty latency sensitive, so this could hurt it in that use-case. But that's only half of it. Your Ryzen 9 also would have been dealing with the latency incurred when crossing CCDs, not just CCXs.
Typically, the Ryzen 9s aren't much if any better for gaming than Ryzen 7s, and this was especially true with Zen 2.
And each time we pc gamers try to explain to console gamers why pc is better for games and why they must become pc gamers like us.
PC has better graphics better perfomance, you dont pay for online, most games are cheaper, you can use keyboard and mouse or controller, you can upgrade it at any time you want
. Since idid my first ugprade in 2001 i upgrade when it becomes old and cant play the games at max settings or when a component dies. Each time a console releases my pc is either a lot more powerful than it or when i do my next upgrade it becomes much more powerful than it.
Usualy i upgrade each 3 or 2 years.
With the last upgrades in 2021(graphics card) it become much more powerful than ps5. and xbbx series x.
That why a console will never be as good as pc is for games.
Back in the mid-1990s, the PC didn't yet have the incredibly vast history and library of games that it does now. The tech was advancing much faster at the time too, so more people were far more concerned with enjoying the latest and greatest back then. 3D was still new, and what we now know as "GPUs" weren't yet a thing on PCs. PCs also still cost a lot at the time, and the types of games between PC and consoles weren't overlapping as much. Overall, consoles had a lot more viability back then compared to today. The PlayStation in particular was a monumental console at the time (surpassed only by its successor, in large part on the back of the success of the original). So those discussions would have actually had more merit back then.
Fast forward to today and the PC has a much longer history of games as you can still play a substantial portion of games from its early years (in addition to emulating so many consoles!), whereas consoles have much more limited backwards compatibility. The advancement in hardware is also slowing, so less of the focus is on needing to have the latest and greatest and more importance is put on older games... which the consoles lack compared to the PC. Also, multi-platform is more of a thing so more console games just end up on PC too now.
That is for the PS5 pro Anniversary edition in japan, the one thats PS1 colored which is limited to12k. No one is selling out of the regular PS5 pro
It is Zen 2 Renoir, which makes it too close to Ryzen 5 4500 if clock speeds are a concern.
We also can’t benchmark Ryzen CPUs with GDDR6 unified memory on PC.
You mean because most Japan companied iddnt release their games on pc then? except capcom. Which is why consoel gamers said that consoles were bettter. European and Amercian companies like EA Ubisoft Activision THQ e.t.c were already on pc. Yes not all comapneis released their games on pc then. It wanst like now where now according to pc gamer https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/pc-gamer-at-tokyo-game-show-2024-day-4-report-capcom-konami-and-snks-booths-in-focus/ now even on jAPAN pc gaming has become more popular
PS5 uses precompiled shaders so there is less GPU/CPU load.
The single memory controller simply allows the CPU to declare memory addresses to the GPU without having to access the GPU's VRAM and transfer all the data there.
PCs and consoles were still fundamentally different back then though, so the games the two platforms had were also pretty different. The PC did get some ports of some notable Japanese publisher games from the time, like Resident 2/3 Evil, Silent Hill 2/3/4, and Final Fantasy VII/VIII (no IX), but most of those ports were pretty poor off.