PS5 vs PC vs XBOX SX


The GPU:s in the consoles will both have RDNA2 architecture with some possible tweaks. RDNA2 will perform about 25% better per tereflops than RDNA1, from that we get

PS5 GPU: equivalent to 2070
XSX GPU: equivalent to 2070 super

The xbox series X GPU will have worse performance/TFLOP due to lacking infinity cache among other issues, RDNA is also a bit weak in raytracing relative to turing. Thus the actual performance is more like

PS5: 2060 super
XSX: 2060

This is about half of what PC will offer when consoles launch and it's clear their weak GPU:s will hold the system back, it will still be good performance for the price but PC gaming will still be significantly better given a big budget (2500$)

XBOX series x will also have faster CPU. What makes it even worse is that PS5 will not even run at constant speeds which will make it more difficult to develop for the console.


Microsoft has already started to realize their 'exclusives' on PC (windows 10) so their consoles are kinda pointless. Sony still have many highly rated exclusives on their platforms but they have also started to release on PC

PC can also play a lot of old titles and rom hacks via emulation and so while you might miss out on some sony and nintendo exclusives for now you got plenty of older high quality games to play.

The advantage with exclusives to PS5 is that they will be made to take full advantage of the next-gen system while most multiplatform titles will be made to run on weaker hardware too which will result in compromises. Sony might still decide to realize on PC later once the typical gaming computer can match the PS5 and they have already sold a lot of consoles via their exclusive games.

So far sony games released on PC hasn't sold super-well

this means that the actual revenue from releasing on PC too isn't super-great. Part of the reason why they released horizon zero:dawn on PC was actually to capture a new audience hoping they would buy a PS5 for the successor.


Paying to play online
Since the PS4 launch console gamers had to put up with paying to use their own internet while PC players can enjoy free online. It was speculated that paid online play on xbox would end but this turned out to be false

You do get games to play when you pay for PS+ but all these games will be locked if you stop paying. Sony can probably get away with this becuase people want to get their hands on their exclusives, they also get away with inferior hardware (such as PS4 pro vs xbox one x).

If you just get PlayStation for single player exclusives then you can ditch PS+ and thus save maybe 300$, you can spend that on your gaming PC instead.


SSD storage
PS5 will have a storage solution that offer better performance but you will only get 825GB of SSD storage there (compared to 1000GB via XSX) .

Sony has claimed their faster SSD will make a massive difference but this is questionable



These days it's very easy to raise the performance of your PC by changing a few settings. Often overclocking is very easy but you just need to make sure your system is still is stable.

This should allow you to beat the XBOX series X with a RTX 2070 super, while (probably) behind at stock frequencies but once you have tweaked it it should instead be faster.


PC hardware will become better soon
Nvidia will launch their RTX3*** cards (such as RTX 3080) and AMD will release their new GPUs (zen 3).

Even then the new consoles will probably be cheaper to buy for the same performance due to sony and microsoft selling at loss but then they are expecting to make their money back such as selling overprized games, they lock you to their ecosystem.


The xbox strategy
Instead of trying to sell their consoles with exclusives they try to offer affordable high-end gaming, cheaper than PC for the same performance, offer gamepass so people can play a lot of games for a small amount of money. They might undercut the PS5 while also offering a superior gaming experience (far better 120hz support, etc)

They will also offer the far cheaper "xbox series S" for people who have an 1080p monitor (maybe also for 1440p) and thus attract people who are unwilling/unable to spend to money required for proper 4K60/4K120 gaming.

Data so far indicate that people strongly prefer the playstation approach where you get high quality exclusive games available if you buy into the platform and then you actually need to pay for the titles, you cannot just play them for free for a low monthly sum. People are excited to see a new generation with significant improvements in terms of what you can play.


it has great resolution actualy
900p isn't great resolution, it's even worse in portable mode (720p).

Framerate is dogshit

This illustrates how hardware matters, if switch had better hardware it could have ran zelda att 1080p60 with the same graphics.

Sometimes it's not even possible to scale back a game for weaker hardware, in the case of crysis for switch they removed one level becuase the switch couldn't handle it, in other cases the game cannot be ported at all.


How much does the average consumer care about graphics?
One myth is that ordinary people just want to play fun games and doesn't care about how the game looks, this is nonsense, people upgraded to PS4 before PS4 had much in terms of great games.

When people look at footage from a game they might buy the graphics will be very noticeable.

There are good reasons why sony makes sure their first party titles reach 1080p resolution on PS4, the xbox one failed to do that in a lot of games and this really did hurt the xbox brand. Microsoft did learn from that mistake and they now put effort into making sure "games look and run the best on xbox" (except for the fact that PC is better).

Also it's still the case that the base xbox one sucks while the base PS4 at least reaches 1080p with good graphics in addition to offering a lot of exclusive titles people actually want.

you are also ovelooking the low price and portability. game look very good on the switch.
I suppose it's ok for a portable device but portable gaming is kinda stupid, you end up having to carry 2 devices (both phone and switch) and the battery only lasts a few hours.


Well-known member
How much does the average consumer care about graphics?
One myth is that ordinary people just want to play fun games and doesn't care about how the game looks, this is nonsense, people upgraded to PS4 before PS4 had much in terms of great games.

When people look at footage from a game they might buy the graphics will be very noticeable.

There are good reasons why sony makes sure their first party titles reach 1080p resolution on PS4, the xbox one failed to do that in a lot of games and this really did hurt the xbox brand. Microsoft did learn from that mistake and they now put effort into making sure "games look and run the best on xbox" (except for the fact that PC is better).

Also it's still the case that the base xbox one sucks while the base PS4 at least reaches 1080p with good graphics in addition to offering a lot of exclusive titles people actually want.

I suppose it's ok for a portable device but portable gaming is kinda stupid, you end up having to carry 2 devices (both phone and switch) and the battery only lasts a few hours.
it lasts like 7 hours, depends on the game really.
besides It comfortable keeping game separate from the PC.
I have : pokemon shield, mk11, fit ring(to do fitness) and a racing game, also hollow knight


Staff member
The wii was the last real console
Wii games was given full access to the system (all 88MB of ram, etc) and there was no updates given to games after the release.

wii also had free online (still has via wiimmfi)

I played the wii a lot as a teen and i was actually dissapointed with it, i thought it would have amazing controls but instead twight princess has awful controls.

Metroid prime 3 was one of the few good wii games that wasn't a gamecube port, it actually had a good implementation of motion controls.

Btw: the computer mouse is actually a form of motion control and it works really well, more precise and less latency than wiimote.

Newer consoles are the worst of both worlds, modern console operating system are more wasteful than windows 10 when it comes to ram usage.

Wii has a weak system and thus couldn't afford to waste hardware resources, by giving games full access to the hardware they partly compensated for the weak system.



Well-known member
Well you cant just get the most expensive advanced option all the time. There is no end to new gaming products. Cant just always wait for the better console, gotta just fucking play.
Having said that, i am thinkimg about getting the htc vive pro


Staff member
xbox series x ram
Xbox series x ram will operate at max speed up until more than 10GB is utilized

It was claimed in multiple articles that 2.5GB of the slow ram would be used for the operating system but i wasn't able to find any good original source for that, the notion of a slow and a fast ram portion is misleading (see link above). wrote:

mm i see this is very approximate data, the reality is different, mainly due to the split ram. Total if you combine the two RAM, the fast RAM will have to slow down hence effective RAM available total is 7.5+2.5/3.5=approx 10-11 GB truly available.

The Xbox SX has only 7.5 GB of interleaved memory operating at 560 GB/s for game utilisation before it has to start "lowering" the effective bandwidth of the memory below the 400 280 GB/Sec (matching the slow RAM portion) when using the other portion of RAM.

Memory has to be interleaved in order to function on a given clock timing to improve the parallelism of the configuration. Interleaving is why you don't get a single 16 GB RAM chip, instead we get multiple 1 GB or 2 GB chips because it's vastly more efficient (1GBx10 chips x 32 bit/pin x 14 GHz/Gbps interface of the GDDR6 memory).

Interleaved memory configurations for the SX's asymmetric memory configuration will allow the Xbox SX to only ever reach the maximum access speeds if it's not ever accessing the less wide portion of the memory. You need to have address space symmetry in order to have interleaving of the RAM, i.e. you need to have all your chips presenting the same "capacity" of memory in order for it to work. This is not the case on XBXSX.

Sony chose another approach by having unified pool of RAM and has interleaved memory configuration for the PS5's symmetric memory configuration (8x2GB Chips) Overall, the PS5 has the edge in pure, consistent throughput...
Last edited:


Is the PS5 powerful enough for 4K120?
PS5 will have about 80% more performance/TFLOP than PS4

So PS5 will have about 10 times more powerful GPU than the base PS4, it can be both more or less since the exact hardware in the PS5 still is uncertain.

The PS5 CPU will be about 4 times more powerful tham the PS4 CPU.

PS4 had 5GB of ram for games, PS5 could offer all 16GB to games by using virtual ram for the OS but more likely it will offer 13 to 14 GB to games.

If a PS4 games run at 1080p60 the same game could run on PS5 at 2160p60 with slightly improved graphics too. A lot of PS4 games run at 1080p60 and these games could easily run at 4K120 on the PS5

If a game runs at 1080p30 on PS4 than reaching 2160p120 will require a graphics downgrade or checkerboard rendering, the CPU should still be able to handle it but it may require some work utilizing the additional threads.

So it comes down to game developers putting in the effort to give us 120fps options in games.

For newer titles made only for the PS5 120fps might not be possible due to these games being more demanding for the CPU.


People are ignorant
Of course most people are generally clueless when it comes to technology, this is why 50 million people bought the xbox one.

Nobody that got to choose brought up that the base xbox one often fails to reach even 1080p which is really bad and something microsoft could have avoided by having a more powerful GPU.

Well the xbox one S does offer 4K bluray but none of the 7 who got the xbox brought that up so it's unlikely they even knew about that advantage, well if your console cannot play games well then it better works well as bluray player.


Did microsoft blow it? (again)
xbox series x should be more powerful than PS5 but they gap will not be as big as it could have been.

First off they have not clocked the GPU particularly high, not sure if it's too late to fix that now. Had they clocked the GPU harder (more like the PS5) the performance gap would become significantly bigger and more people would be more likely to buy it over the PS5.

Secondly their ram design is questionable, it will be difficult to properly utilize if more than 10GB is used (in total, see above). 2.5GB will be reserved for the operating system which is pretty bad, not as bad as the PS4 but close, there is absolutely no good reason to waste 2.5GB of valuable gddr6 to run the operating system.

We will probably also see the series x held back in a lot of games since they decided to make sure the game could also run on the far weaker original xbox one.

What might still save the xbox series x is being more suited for machine learning including a technology similar to


Response to sony fan
His entire point was "ps5 will have amazing exclusives" and thus games looking better at xbox series x shouldn't matter

He claimed you wouldn't be able to really see the difference in graphics despite power difference, what he is ignoring is that the real difference is in resolution (which is difficult to see difference in via youtube) and framerate (where PC wins by a big margin).

If more xbox series x games will support 120hz that will make a very significant difference if you have a 4K TV, it will make a much more noticable difference than just increasing the resolution or tweaking some graphics settings.

He also claimed he would also get the series X so clearly he doesn't actually think it's a bad/pointless system. He stated that he would like microsoft to release exclusives for the series X even though that would be bad for consumers and not really benefit anyone.

Sony loses out on significant amount of money in keeping their titles just to playstation, this is why they have started to release their 'exclusives' on PC and this will very likely continue.

If you own both systems why shouldn't you play your games on an inferior system unless sony pulls some anticonsumer nonsense? (which also cost sony money). What then end up happening is people using the PS5 just to play exclusives and then having the system collect dust, this is one of the reason why it's important to also deliver the best hardware like sony did with the original PS4, both sony and microsoft are clearly pushing it when it comes to console hardware.
PC peasant mentality
The fact that you play on PC does not mean you are anywhere close to where you could be in terms of gaming experiences. Here are some symptoms of being a PC peasant
  1. You think mouse and keyboard is the "end all be all" when it comes to controllers, in reality for a lot of titles other input methods are superior. A mouse is limited to just 2 degrees of freedom when it comes to motion.
  2. You think 100fps is a good framerate (it isn't).
  3. you think gtx 1060 3GB is a good enough GPU (it isn't).
  4. You think 4 cores is enough for gaming (lol).
  5. You still think 1080p is good enough.
PC is still the platform with the highest potential but next gen consoles will offer more performance for the same price and people will not be screwed over buying pre-builds if they go for consoles.


Gyro aiming
The playstation 5 controller will be able to offer far more precision for shooters than the xbox controller, it's just a matter if developers implementing this option. The DS4 also support gyro aiming but they didn't put much effort into supporting it in games.

With motion controls (mouse/gyro/IR/etc) there isn't any need for nonsense like auto-aiming.



Console hacking
A general theme with consoles is that even when they come with great things in terms of hardware you cannot take full usage of it due to all restrictions. You simply have to hope someone is able to hack the console so you will be able to use it to the fullest instead of being stuck with a really bad console operating system.

Of course sony and microsoft doesn't want you do to this since they want to recover the money they lost subsidizing and marketing their new consoles.


The best platform to play on will still be high end PC but we can still expect consoles to get significantly closer the next generation.

Raw power
high end PC >> xbox series x > PS5 >> xbox series s

This however will also be reflected in the prize, high end PC gaming is expensive, especially when you upgrade often.

PC > PS5 >> xbox

It remains to be seen how good the PS5 dualsense controller will be and how well it will be utilized but you will also be able to use the dualsense to play games on PC, PC also support a lot of other controllers and with PC you can utilize console controllers far better (the PS5/PS4 trackpad can be used as a mouse, etc).

PC > xbox series x ≈ PS5

This isn't just about power, a lot of games who could run at 120+ fps on ps5 will not have that option becuase developers are unwilling to put into the work required to implement that option.

Game library
PC > PS5 > xbox series x

With emulation PC is able to destroy any single console in terms of allowing you to actually play good games. PS5 could easily do PS3 emulation but sony has so far refused to say anything about it.
With a console all games released for it has to be approved by the console manufacturer, this has the advantage of allowing sony/microsoft to block outright bad games but instead they use that power to censor video-games for no good reason.

This really illustrates how PC is the superior platform. Even if you buy a PS5 you should still have a good PC as your main platform while PS5 is used for your kids or when there is some exclusive you want to play despite bad framerate (60fps).


Console power comparison (GPU)
The following diagram was by multiplying the next gen TFLOP numbers by 1.8 to adjust for higher IPC, this however is theoretical and so far it has not translated into XSX offering better performance in games (its worse than PS5 so far).



Actual performance
Now we finally have some performance numbers and it turns out the PS5 is really close to the xbox series x in performance, not the big win microsoft needed.

The xbox does still have the advantage of supporting varial refresh rate output and giving people a 4K60 option (in that game, should be sorted out).

PS5 have marginally faster loading times, no significant difference in performance. PS5 might actually end up performing better in real games than XSX in terms of graphics and frame-rates



Xbox series X losing to RTX 2060 super
People were talking about how it would perform like a 2080ti which was obvious nonsense. In raytracing (where RDNA2 is weak) these new consoles are really not that great. Turns out if you bought a 2060 super July 9 year 2019 you got a better GPU for 400$ than what you get buying a 500$ console today.

PS5 - 8 core 16 threads 3.5GHz
XSX - 8 core 16 threads 3.6GHz 2.6% difference

PS5 = 10.28TF
XSX = 12TF 17% difference

RAM bandwidth
PS5 = 16GB @ 448GB/s 22% difference against the 6GB
XSX = 10GB @ 560GB/s and 6GB @ 336GB/s 22% difference for 10GB

Triangle rasterization
PS5 - 4 x 2.23 = 8.92 BT/s 20% difference for PS5
XSX - 4 x 1.825 = 7.3 BT/s

Culling rate
PS5 - 8 x 2.23 GHz = 17.84 BT/s 20% difference for PS5
XSX - 8 x 1.825 GHz = 14.6 BT/s

Pixel fill rate
PS5 - 64 x 2.23 - 142.72 GPixel/s 20% difference for PS5
XSX - 64 x 1.825 - 116.8 GPixel/s

Texture fill rate
PS5 - 4 x 36 x 2.23 = 321.12 GTexel/s
XSX - 4 x 52 x 1.825 = 379.6 GTexel/s 16% difference for XSX

ray triangle intersection rate
PS5 - 4 x 36 x 2.23 = 321.12 Billion RTI/s
XSX - 4 x 52 x 1.825 = 379.6 Billion RTI/s 16%
The increased speed of the L Caches paired with the 64 ROP with 2230mhz clocks hit a very high 143 gigapixels/sec, versus the Series X at 117GP/s. The faster data management most likely scaled massively well with the console I/O throughput. Pixel fill rate is one of the reasons why the UE5 demo was so impressively and it was pushing out billions of pixels a second. Higher resolutions as well as higher frame rate scale well with Pixel fill rate.

Honestly, MS SHOULD have opted for more ROPs. RDNA2 GPUs so far look like they have more ROPs with higher CU counts as otherwise theres not enough fill rate to saturate the CUs
The theory that the issue was dev tools has already been debunked by a DIRT 5 dev

35:35 covers the notion that the XSX has better performance potential

38:40 cover the storage performance, he claimed that XSX could load 10GB in 2 seconds meaning its SSD is faster than official specs.

47:40 covers dev-tools (XSX vs PS5)