Isn't this a disingenuous comparison since the ps5 in quality runs between 972p and 1242p. It seems nxgamer is using higher resolution on pc which skew the results. A more accurate test would be to compare at the resolutions the ps5 actually renders the game in and then compare the frame rate.
miiiiv's forum posts
I've just skimmed through the videos but it seems that nx gamer runs the game at higher resolution on pc to make it seem that the ps5 performs closer to his pc (5600x coupled with a radeon 6800) than it actually does.
According Digital Foundry the i5 11400 (6 cores) is faster than the Zen 2 based processor in PS5 even with it's core deficit.
The i5 11400 is not as fast as the 3700X in multi thread.
So I guess 3700X > i5 11400 > PS5 CPU
30 fps will not be the new norm but I expect more AAA titles to run at 30 fps on consoles in the future.
So I was right that the CPUs in these consoles are gimped too.
They are around the 3700X level. Not a bad CPU, but not exactly future proof. At the end of the day, these are only $500 boxes. You get what you pay for.
I've heard that the ps5 uses a laptop zen 2 cpu at around 30W TDP. Which could explain why 120 hz game modes run at 85-120 fps even a low res. But I'm not entirely sure about it.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-4700s-desktop-kit-review-ps5-cpu
Both of the new videos you showed have the Series X losing handily to a 3060ti, I'm not sure why you decided to own yourself but here we are. FH running lower res and settings on the X, Far Cry running lower settings on the X, laughable really.
lower settings?? It looks the same to me, virtually identical. FH is running at 4k 60fps locked.
A screen grab from one of the videos you posted. You can clearly see even in a compressed picture from a youtube video that the pc is running with higher reflections and lighting.
Almost all of these comparison videos on youtube are either dishonest or ignorant or both.
You really think anyone is going to notice or even care about that nonsense when they're playing whatever game that is? That looks so close, that I could never imagine a normal person caring about whatever differences there are. OMFG LOL
If you have read the whole thread you would know that I was referring to the game not running at equal settings and not about how much difference there is between the pc and series x version. tjandmia used the videos as an example to try to convince people that the series x is as powerful as the 3070 which is not the case.
alot of these sad fanboys, spent $1k on their gpu, and spent 3 days waiting outside a tent in the sub zero temperatures to get a graphics card at bestbuy that doesn't even beat the xbox series x. I have to face palm at these nvidia scamboys always hyping up dsl, physx, and gsync. Its laughable. I remember when they hyped up wavy hair physx in tombraider all those years ago, and yes it was a thing...I was just constantly facepalming again and again, also just laughing my ass off. Now im laughing at how dumb they are today with dsl and gsync. You nvidia scamboys never learn, but are always good for a laugh.
Both of the new videos you showed have the Series X losing handily to a 3060ti, I'm not sure why you decided to own yourself but here we are. FH running lower res and settings on the X, Far Cry running lower settings on the X, laughable really.
lower settings?? It looks the same to me, virtually identical. FH is running at 4k 60fps locked.
A screen grab from one of the videos you posted. You can clearly see even in a compressed picture from a youtube video that the pc is running with higher reflections and lighting.
Almost all of these comparison videos on youtube are either dishonest or ignorant or both.

With support for DLSS continuing to grow with adaption in major and minor titles console users can't really downplay it as something only a small handful of games will use. DLSS is a big game changer as it can even offer a 85% boost in framerate in COD Cold War and a 60% boost in Cyberpunk 2077. DLSS makes 4k 90+fps on high/max settings an actual possibility on PC. The PS5 and Xbox Series S|X don't have an answer to DLSS despite being capable of machine learning. The Xbox Series X machine learning performance is half that of an RTX 2060 it also doesn't help that the consoles don't have dedicated hardware for machine learning which means resources will be taken away from other task in order to do it so it won't get the same performance benefit as it would on an Nvidia RTX card which tensor cores for machine learning.
Is the machine learning performance really that low on the series X? I don't necessarily doubt it, but a source would be nice.
While I often prefer SNES, sound effects are better overall ( Street Fighter 2 comes to mind ) and the music in Donkey Kong Country, Final Fantasy etc. I really like the Genesis/Mega Drive sound as well, it's a different style. The Sonic games have awesome music and Mega Man Generations (remakes of Mega Man 1,2 and 3) probably wouldn't have sounded as good on the SNES, that kind of music suits the Genesis/Mega Drive better.
I think most of the poor 1% and 0.1% lows are because of the tested games favor single core/thread performance. And the PS5 uses a laptop Zen2 CPU. A game that's optimized for 4 threads will run considerably better on the Ryzen 3 3300X (desktop Zen2 CPU) than on the PS5.
I'm certain the PS5 will fare better than the Ryzen 3 3300X in heavily multi threaded games.
The PS5 GPU is about half the performance of the Radeon 6800XT (still well ahead of the the GTX 1060) but it's nothing to get overly excited about.
Again it’s not the same this time
With ps4 you could have purchased a R9 290 for $400 and got double the power of PS4,
Double the power of Series X isn’t possible right now, for any amount of money
Are you sure about that? A 6900xt is 23 TFLOPS which is almost double the power. Same architecture so comparing TFLOPS is fairly accurate. A mere 5% overclock would put the 6900xt at 24 TFLOPS. Maybe there are already models that have a factory oc of 5% or more.
Log in to comment