We will obviously not be able to run the Series S version of the game without graphical changes. If you take those numbers, an imaginary 3TFLOP isn't 75% the performance of the Series S, but closer to 55%. Likely because where Nvidia spent silicon on tensor cores and RT units, AMD spent them on TMUs and ROPs. We could compare other cards, and I have, but the gap gets bigger, not smaller as you look elsewhere. Going as the FLOPS fly, Ampere is performing at about 74% of RDNA 2. If we grade on a curve - adjusting the for the differences in TFLOPS - that improves slightly. Here is the 1080, rasterization only numbersĪs we can see pretty clearly, the Ampere card underperforms the RDNA 2 card by a significant margin, with only a 3.9% standard deviation. We're going to act like "big bandwidth" on consoles and "medium bandwidth plus infinity cache" are different paths to the same result, but it's the biggest asterisk over the whole thing.ĭigital Foundry has kindly provided us with dozens of data points of these two cards running the same game in the same machine at matched settings. The consoles and the RX 6000 series have very different memory subsystems. The downside of this comparison is the memory bandwidth. And the performance is within the same realm as the existing consoles, so we're not trying to fudge from something insane like a 4090. The Ampere card is slightly fewer FLOPS built on 20% more cores, the RDNA 2 card supports that compute power with twice as much rasterization hardware. No comparison is perfect, but from a high level, this is pretty close. The RTX 3050 is 2560 cores, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, with 224 GB/s of memory bandwidth, at 9 TFLOPS. The RX 6600 XT is 2048 cores, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPS, with 256 GB/s of memory bandwidth + 444.9 GB/s infinity cache, at 10.6 TFLOPS 's GPU is 1536 cores, ? TMUs, 16 ROPs, with 102 GB/s of memory bandwidth, at a theoretical 3 TFLOPS. The Series S GPU is 1280 cores, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, with 224 GB/s of memory bandwidth, at 4TFLOPS If we want to game out how Series S and might perform against each other we would, ideally, want two GPUs that we could test that roughly parallel all those things. There are also tradeoffs for going for a wider/slower vs narrower/faster design. There are also ROPS/TMUs/memory subsystems/feature set. If you want the numbers, open the spoiler. Whatever the on-paper gap between and Series S, the practical gap will be somewhat larger. The tech pessimism - Ampere FLOPS and RDNA 2 FLOPS aren't the same, and it favors RDNA 2. Go back to worrying about the CPU, because that's the hard problem. Good news: DLSS + The Series S graphics settings, done. But this puts in solidly "holy shit how did they fit it onto that tiny machine" territory. Cutting the frame rate would - except it's already 30fps. With GPU limited games, you can cut the resolution, but that won't help here. This is especially rough with Starfield, a game that is CPU limited. The existence of a Series S version doesn't help at all here. And, most importantly - the daylight between Series S and Series X is minimal. is set to make a generational leap over Switch, but PS5/Xbox Series have made an even bigger leap, simply because of how behind they were before. That put them in spitting distance of each other. Last gen TV consoles went with bad laptop CPUs. Graphs like this kill a lot of nuance, but they're also easy to understand. It would also be a lot of work, and not in the ways that, say, The Witcher III was a lot of work. But yes, I believe a port of Starfield would be possible. And obviously, Starfield is going to remain console exclusive to Microsoft's machines. Switch had big advantages and big disadvantages when it came to ports - is the same but they are different advantages and disadvantages.įor the most part, the Series S doesn't "help" ports as much as some folks think. I know that's not satisfying, but the PS5/Xbox Series consoles are not just bigger PS4/Xbox One, and is not just a bigger Switch. If there is one thing I want folks to come away with from this exercise it's "the problems of last gen are not the problems of this gen. Which, I guess, is kinda abstract since we're talking about unreleased software on unannounced hardware, but let me have this. Rather than do some abstract "Redacted is 73% of Series 5, assuming Nintendo picks Zeta Megahertz on the Right Frombulator" I thought it would be nice to look in depth at Starfield, a game I'm curious about, and think about what it might look like on a theoretical. Since then, the launch of truly "next-gen" games has come along, and my own understanding has grown, so I thought it might be worth returning to. The last time I did some truly in depth prediction on performance it was in the context of PS4 and cross-gen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |