Topic: PS5 Digital vs. XSS

While I have no interest in the Series S, it is a play. It's a great machine for the fortnite generation. Add in game pass for 3 months and for under £300 you have a next gen console with over 100 games and its Fortnite ready.

Saying PS5 digital and Series S are a different class of console is taking a lot for granted, The PS5 is only able to keep those boost clocks going for a couple of seconds. It is a 9 TFLOP console 99% of the time. Rumor has been the Series S is 4 TFLOPs but the design seems optimized to cool around 7 TFLOPs.

If this is true it could put the Series S closer to the PS5 in performance than the PS5 is to the Series X.

My real point is don't write off anything until we have the full details and 3rd party testing will give us the performance details not manufactures stat sheets

@TooBarFoo sorry, I will take you to task and stop this now. The PS5 is capable of running boost clocks for way more than a couple of seconds. It is designed to maintain the "boost" clocks as standard. It drops when load isn't so high to help with longevity of components. The PS5 is not a 9 TFLOP machine, and this is the one piece of BS about the next-gen systems I wish would stop. That and the Xbox Series X/S SSD being terrible, it's not, and it won't massively impact the sorts of games that can be produced, it's nonsense and there are techniques around any bandwidth deficits the Xbox Series X/S may have. I could go into the math of the two systems, but I quite frankly think there's no point. Suffice to say both Microsoft and Sony targeted very similar end results that gamers will see on screen. But both took very, very different engineering routes to get there. It will be just as interesting for me to see how it all plays out, but in simple terms Sony sought to have a very fast system that can keep it's algorithm units (CPU and GPU) supplied with tasks to get closer to peak usage as average. Microsoft went the massively parallel route and brute force, but keeping 52 compute units fully tasked isn't easy, but there is a pay off if you manage it. The PS5 will run at or close to it's theoretical peak performance most of the time I'd assume, in fact with the cache scrubbers and memory management the majority of the computational power will by directed at what is on screen. The Xbox Series consoles have chosen to stick with the current paradigm (which for many is very, very welcome) and help with current rendering pipelines... but that means keeping the CPU and GPU at peaks is going to be very hard. However, in those moments where things get heavy in terms of load the Xbox should have head room and cope theoretically with excess demand. Sony hope with their priority levels and scrubbers that they can avoid excess demand and run near peak. Just drives me slightly mad how the two philosophies are misrepresented by people who generally haven't got a clue.

@TooBarFoo also the XSS is not a 7 TFLOP machine. Where the hell is that BS coming from? It's computational limit is just over 4 TFLOPs, but ironically I think it's probably a better balanced system than the X, because it will never be CPU bottlenecked, and although it has less RAM and way less bandwidth than the RAM in the X it has headroom, so supplying the 20 CUs in the XSS shouldn't be the issue it might be on the X. However, it's nowhere near the level of either the PS5 or XSX. It just isn't. Given the lower clock of the XSS GPU as well I think we might see variable resolution deployed more frequently as the optimisation sacrificial lamb, which is preferable to me than frames.

Just to squash the silly 7 TFLOP claim once and for all, to get that sort of computational count from the XSS GPU you'd have to run it at 3GHz. That's insane. You'd need custom liquid cooling to stop the thing from just shutting down. The GPU is clocked at 1.55 GHz, because that's all it needs to be clocked at. It's actual TFLOP count is circa 3.9 to 4, I'm not sure of the theoretical ALU score to be honest because it doesn't really matter. However, claiming it's a 7 TFLOP machine is ridiculous.

One thing that came to mind as I was thinking about this last night, is how online multiplayer games work on the xbox systems? I'm not quite sure if the XSS will be able to to hit 60fps and 120fps as consistently as the XSX can. I suppose this will upto the developer whether or not to have a fixed fame rate. If a fixed frame is implemented it would need to be at the lower rate so it works at a stable level on both consoles, but that means that you are not getting the full potential if you have a XSX. If the frame rate is unlocked it means the game could become unstable on the XSS and people with the XSX get an advantage. This could become an issue especially with online shooters when twitch reactions are so important. I've had this question since the Pro and One X were intorduced and not really been given a definite answer. How do PC games get round this? I know people complain that you get a lot more hackers and cheaters on PC as it is not on a 'walled garden' like on consoles, but not sure how true this is.

@JohnnyShoulder no easy answer. But what I will say is if the XSX can hit a frame rate at 4K, the XSS is scaled in a way that it should be able to hit that same frame rate at 1080p and maybe even 1440p game depending. I also think the XSS is set up for variable resolutions to favour frames. So I really don't envision a situation where say Destiny 2 is hitting 4k @ 60fps on XSX, but is say 1440p @ 30fps on the XSS. You might get a situation where one or the other is able to better hit its target frame rate more consistently than the other, but I don't envision there being massive frame rate discrepancies. If there are I'd be honestly surprised.

@SirAngry Ah yeah of course, the resolution takes a hit. That does make sense. Thanks for replying!

@JohnnyShoulder I have no problem answering broad questions like yours, on things that are publicly known, the XSS will be mostly a native 1080p / 1440p system. It should hit those resolutions fairly comfortably pixel quality depending. So the frame rates should be fine I think.

The two are, in my mind, quite different. The only things they have in common really is that they are both the 'cheaper' option and both all-digital media only.

The PS5 Digital is just a PS5 without the 4k HDR Bluray player - everything else appears to be exactly the same as you would expect to find on the more expensive version. Its targetting the same game experience/performance too. In other words, apart from the bluray drive, the consoles are the same with the same expected visual quality and performance.

The Series S on the other hand is a 'lower' spec - at least as far as its GPU, RAM and Storage capacity is concerned - version and the reason the GPU is lower spec is because its targetting a lower resolution. We don't really know the full specs yet, just rumours but if they are correct, it should be about 20CU cores offering ~4TF. That's less than half the size of the PS5 all digital. 4TF may not seem like a lot - especially as the 'PS4 Pro' was 4.2TF and the XB1X was 6TF, but this is RDNA2 architecture which is a lot more efficient - meaning you get a LOT more 'performance' per TF. An RDNA1 GPU at ~4.1TF easily matched a 6TF GPU similar to the XB1X - perhaps why MS also decided to cancel the XB1X now too. The Series S is a lower resolution version of the Series X as well as being all-digital.

There is this 'thought' amongst Playstation owners that somehow, the PS5 will have a better Audio - perhaps because Mark Cerney made a big deal about it during his GDC teardown - in it, he stated the Audio processing was about the same as a PS4 (not Pro) CPU - that's 8cores at 1.6Ghz. However, MS state their Audio Processing is greater than ALL 8cores of their XB1X CPU - that's clocked at 2.3GHz and by far the most 'powerful' CPU in a console currently. Based on what both companies have said, MS has the more powerful Audio processing. MS perhaps didn't make a big deal out of it so far because its not 'new' for Xbox to have a 'dedicated' Audio Processor and not rely on the CPU for that like the PS4/Pro. Its new for Sony to offload Audio processing...

Of course the 'proof is in the pudding' so to speak. Xbox can do that HRTF thing that Mark Cerney was going on about - in fact the XB1 can offer that Spatial sound now. The only difference is that MS probably has created profiles and Mark Cerney indicated that maybe you can have your own profile created based on your own ear. The Hotchips breakdown and slides all indicate that MS will have a very powerful Audio processor in the Series X and I would be surprised if that is 'reduced' in the Series S. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding and so it will be interesting to hear both and see if I can detect any difference...

Anyway, that's a bit off topic. The Series S is, as I see it, targeting a 'different' person - one less interested in 'resolution' but still wanting to play the same library of games at 'high' frame rates. The PS5 all digital is targeting the same audience as the PS5 that are willing to give up a Physical 4k HDR Bluray drive and/or prepared to go all digital. You are not going to sacrifice higher resolutions to save some money with PS5 but will be 'sacrificing' more with the Series S - and why its only £250.

Series S everyday of the week. Cost is insanely good value and then you add Gamepass. In the 8 months of owning the xbox with gamepass never bought a game.

@Kidfried The Series S will play games like the Medium, Scorn, Stalker 2, Warhammer 40k: Darktide and any other 3rd Party next gen ONLY games. There's 4 off the top of my head that will be 'next gen' only - not coming to Xbox One!!

Just because MS have said that they expect their First Party releases to come to 'both' generations, doesn't mean that the Series S/X won't have 'exclusives' to that console generation and, as it also has all the features of the Series X, the Series S also will support Ray Tracing, VRS, faster loading etc too. With it sharing the same CPU too, you also get the higher frame rates - even if you don't get the the higher resolutions.

@Shigurui The base XB1 doesn't support HDR but the XB1S does - as well as upscaling to 4k. Still difficult to recommend buying an XB1S now though - unless you really want a 4k HDR Bluray player...

Removing comment because I thought specs were publicly known.

This is a bizarre comparison. They're not the same, or even close. The digital PS5 is just the PS5 without a disc drive. The Xbox Series S is a lower spec Series X. So if the PS5 is a delicious cheese and Branston pickle sandwich, then the PS5 Digital is a cheese sandwich that somebody hasn't put the pickle on for some reason.

If we're still going with this analogy then the Xbox Series S is two slices of bread with one of those rubbish American cheese slices in it. Not a hint of pickle. You're paying less but you're getting less.

Also, the wonderbread and American cheese doesn't have very many games.

I don't know.

@BAMozzy Ah... thank you for clearing that up. Thanks, that makes more sense. Microsoft's communication on all of this has been so confusing.

And I get why Xbox Series S is still an upgrade coming from Xbox One OG, just didn't really understand why @Shigurui themselves was interested in the machine.

That being said, obviously the Xbox Series S is a perfect console for many, like those without a 4K TV who are interested in next-gen.

@johncalmc I like cheese but the thought of a dry cheese sandwich makes me want to hurl.

@nessisonett That's why you gotta add that pickle, man!

@SirAngry That's not 'official' specs - that is 'leaked' specs so until its official, I don't tend to quote leaks - but I do take them into consideration when making comments.

DF did a 'test' video using an RDNA1 GPU at 4.1TF with a Polaris GPU at 6TF to compare whether or not a 4TF GPU would come close to XB1X and proved that performance was very much on a par with each other. Of course they can't test the efficiency claims about RDNA2 so this was the closest they could get. However, that does show that AMD have managed to get a lot more performance per TF. The fact that 4TF RDNA 1 can do the same as something with 50% more TF does bode well for the future. 4TF RDNA2 may well end up being 'equivalent' to a 7+ TF Polaris...

It will be interesting to see how it does compare when it releases of course. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'leaked' spec ends up being close to the released spec but right now, MS themselves haven't published the specs. Even Windows Central state the 'Likely' specs are compiled from 3rd Party reports as well as the published information (like SSD size, performance target, price etc). The actual spec of the GPU is not actually confirmed... yet

And now its confirmed - the Series X will be £449/$499... Over to you Sony!

@BAMozzy whoops, then I'll delete my comment because I thought they'd confirmed it. I know what it is.

@SirAngry Its not confirmed but that doesn't mean that those won't be the specs. The leak could be 'accurate' and 4TF has been rumoured to be the performance metric of the GPU for a LONG time. It could be that someone did the calculations based on that 'rumoured' 4TF and concluded it must be running at 1.55Ghz - because that's as close as you can get. 1.6Ghz for example would make it 4.1TF...

A 0.1TF may not seem a lot - but consider last gen consoles (PS3/XB360) on much older and far less efficient architecture were only around 0.24TF. There is 0.44TF difference between a PS4 and an XB1S (more if you look at the OG XB1 - and that difference is more than 2x a Xbox 360) so 0.1TF (or 100GFlops compared to the 360's 240GFlops) isn't 'trivial' even if it seems it when written as 0.1TF or the difference between 4 and 4.1. Tera is 'Trillion' or 1 followed by 12 '0's'. If you have 4.1 trillion dollars, that 0.1 isn't 'insignificant' - that's $100,000,000,000....

Anyway, getting side tracked again LOL