Polorious GCN TF vs RDNA TF don't equal out.
Throw out the 6 vs 4.2TF argument of the Xbox One X vs the PS4 Pro because the gains of power/efficiency from moving from GCN tech to RDNA tech are substantial.
The sheer difference in TF numbers is obscuring that it isn't just about raw numbers. AMD hasn't put out a direct comparison between the two types of teraflop but that hasn't stopped others from doing so. This german site tried to do it to pretty good results. Downclocking so that a GCN card had 1TF and an RDNA card was 1TF
AMD Radeon RX 5700 und RX 5700 XT im Test: Architektur-Vergleich, Preis-Leistung, Custom Designs (Update)''
Basically you target and say I want full GPU and the CPU underclocks so the Power Budget keeps the GPU clock high. The Power that would have been CPU Reserved goes over to the GPU to keep it's clock more stable, and since the CPU is now lower clocked, the more intense utilisation or instructions will not tip the Power Balance - well, that is for a game that is also not Absolutely thrashing both.
indeed this Info comes from people who work on the Thing.
Basically, if the Gpu is at 10.2 TF, the cpu is not at 3.5 GHz.
What they are saying is that a RDNA TF outperforms a GCN card by 40%
Xbox Series X is 12.1TF with fixed clocks
PS5 is 10.3TF overclocked with a boost mode and that will not always be sustainable.
There was going to be a difference once we saw the specs shown, there was always going to be a difference. So, when you have the console with more shader units, faster ram and faster CPU than the Original TF of 9.2 and the theoretical peaks of 10.2 TF and 3.5Ghz on the PS5, this was all the easy part to figure out. At no point in time will you ever see in console gaming where variable frequencies are better than fixed frequencies. A part of me believes that this was done to get to a double digit TF number to have on spec sheets.
One of the digital foundry guys here
NX Gamer: PS5 Full Spec Analysis | A new generation is Born
Sony's games will be Sony's games and they will likely continue to be great. I've said it before and I'll say it again. What we see as the PS5, I fully believe that this isn't what it was supposed to be. I don't know if it was supposed to come out last year but that 9.2TF number on Github was real. I think that the 12TF number spooked them to the point that we now have what we see as the PS5. I'm not calling it shytty or not worth money, I'm just saying I have a hunch that when Mark Cerny set out to create the PS5, he was given a $399 mandate like he was for the PS4 and was going to hit another grand slam. However, when Sony learned that Microsoft was going to make what appears to be another $499 console but there wasn't going to be a bullshyt camera in there this time around, adding $150 to the MSRP, they had to move and hence we get this, PS5 to the consumers, PS5.5 to the engineers. Another reason I say this? Why is the market leader scared to release a price? For both, this has been ridiculous but for Sony, you had over 100 million console purchases last gen. Again, my hunch, there is a heavy R&D burden on the PS5 that won't be entirely revealed with a strip down of the bill of materials and they are hoping that Microsoft prices high so that they can price high and it doesn't come off as a crazy price to the consumer. This obviously has no impact on sales, etc., I'm merely discussing what I think is part of the history of this console. It has taken on some weird things, far weirder than I am accustomed to seeing, especially from a console developer that should be moving from a position of strength.
Here are some reference points for you all to remember
Code:
Console Price Price Date Announced Where? Release Date
PlayStation 1 $299 May 11th 1995 E3 September 9, 1995
PlayStation 2 $299 May 13th 2000 E3 October 26th 2000
PlayStation 3 $499-$599 May 8th 2006 E3 November 11th 2006
PlayStation 4 $399 June 11th 2013 E3 November 15th 2013
PlayStation 5 ??? ??? ??? ???
Obviously, there is no E3 but we are in August now. We know that Microsoft is trying to undercut Sony but as a market leader, Sony shouldn't be playing the same game so that is why I think it has to do with the cost of the console and what it will take to get it to market.
My $0.02 anyways.
