I think a lot of people forget (or never fully realized) that early Zen really was never particularly fast; its advantages were lots of cores for cheap, and then they added in efficiency when they hit 7nm with Zen 2, but were still behind the Intel ST performance curve. It wasn't until Zen 3 that AMD really started to challenge Intel in ST.
perfectly true , but this show how big of an evolution amd had in last years . FX8000 vs i7 2/3gen = 2x power consumption for worse performance , now 7800x3d vs 13900k = better performance in games for almost half power consumption
@@istealpopularnamesforlikes3340 I had 1600af , 3600 and now 5800x3d ... each upgrade was really big and noticable , and it would be all on 1 motherboard if asus b350 didn't died on me ;P Still use 1600af on my backup / tinkering rig and if you don't need high refresh rate gaming it's still a powerhouse . Jumped to 1600af from i5 8400 and newere regreted .
calling it "never particularly fast" is playing it a bit fast, e.g the 1600x have a single core performance that is 90% of that of the Core i5-7600K while costing 90% so price:single-core-perf was 1:1. So when the first Ryzen where released it was quite close to Intel and quite close is not "never particularly fast" unless one also means that the Intels of the time was also "never particularly fast". Ofc later Intel CPU:s where faster than the first gen of Ryzen but that is just the name of game, it should be compared with the CPU:s that existed when it was released and not what came long time after.
nah, early ryzen had competitive single thread performance. it was a bit slower than intel, but it was on the same ballpark. something AMD couldn't manage ever since the core2 architecture first came out. the thing is they didn't rest on their laurels and kept improving it to the point that it SEEMS slow now.
Zen 1s biggest strength was its Multithreaded performance which destroyed Intel's HEDT line up over night by basically selling similar multicore performance at about a quarter of the price or so.
Well obviously worse. There's no dedicated I/O unit on PC so the I/O overhead will put additional stress on CPU or GPU (depending on DirectStorage on/off). Xbox has a dedicated I/O unit so it will perform better. Moreover the 4800S has a much slower memory bandwidth in comparison.
This would be the ultimate test to see how much the console optimization impacts performance. 4800S + RX6700XT + Gen 3.0 NVMe would be a pretty comparable machine on paper.
@@xenuCS Yeap, these are always pointless comparisons because the console hardware and customisation simply cannot be matched from off the shelf Pc parts, so pointleess.
Would be nice to see this (with a GPU in the ballpark of Series X) compared to an actual Xbox Series X, to see how much optimization helps (or not) the console.
That would be much more interesting. The performance of these console CPUs compared to current ones which are two generations ahead shouldn't be a surprise to anyone
No, what we all really want is a way to hack the Xbox Series X. It is a seriously fast CPU and GPU for the money. If somehow we can get a build of Windows10 Pro run on it properly, I can see people start to pick these up as budget HTPC option. Even better if it was a hardware hack, allowing you to dualboot between WindowsOS and XboxOS. It's technically possible, but whether it is probable is a whole nother thing.
I just LOVE Rich's video analysis. They are just amazing, so much passion, so much knowledge and delivered in an impeccable communication style, always professional yet smooth. Congratulations Rich, you are absolutely one of the BEST EVER in your field. Hats off to You Sir !
Man, I'm already waiting for yet another awesome DF 3-way comparison: Rich on this Series X APU, John on 4700S/PS5 APU and Alex on his midrange PC (Ryzen 5 3600 + RTX 2070 Super).
@@tulponatix They just showed this junk does not run as well as an R5 3600 (6 core, 12 thread). Steve from Gamers Nexus said the GPU in this console was about the same as a GTX 1060, 1070 at best.
@@ragingmonk6080 Well it appears Steve was wrong. Because Xbox One X is between 1060 and 1070. You must have heard him wrong. Or he made an honest mistake. Or he is plain stupid. Because it would mean that Xbox Series X is the same as Xbox One X,which would make no sense whatsoever. It is also possible he was talking about Series S.
@@GameslordXY The Xbox One X was worse than a RX 480 and if a Series X is GTX 1060 / 1070 that would place it at GTX 1060ti level or a little more. That is a generational gain. He was testing the Series X not S. He is a professional and is trusted. He did not make a mistake, you did. The Xbox One X was so bad that when the series x launched Digital foundry made fun of how dismal the performance was. You people have to realize that the console is three to five years behind PC. AMD sells leftovers to consoles and that is why they are cheap. AMD made what they could off of PC and will cash out on the end. None of us are getting anything for free. Not from AMD, Nvidia, Intel, Sony or Microsoft. You get what you pay for.
I think this will be great to test when starfield comes out , to see if it can actually hold 60 fps or what settings - if any - would allow it to do so
probably similar to star citizen in the video they made about starfield using a 3600 it holds around 60fps in empty gpu bound areas and cities cpu bound it could drop into the teens but obviously it will be better dropping into the 30s most likely
It's tough to look forward to a new title these days. Let's see how it plays before building up our expectations. New high end cpus have like 3-4x the console performance, graphics cards probably even more but we still don't see a single game that could showcase these differences. It's nice that we get some console ports to play with on PC (something is better than nothing) but I don't exactly get hyped about the performance or visual fidelity they offer. If anything they rather lower our expectations about what should be possible on PC.
Damn this whole thread came after me. Tour de force is hyperbolic. What about this video was a tour de force? Rich explaining another CPUs relatability to an Xbox? Or are you saying rich is technically super capable by making a video about a CPU? Or is the CPU technically super capable? I disagree with you. Y'all regarde ça de près!
@@autodidact7127 since you know what a tour de france is, then i guess it wont be a stretch to replace that with the word roller coaster right? if you go on a roller coaster of events wont it be a great use of the phrase in this context? then how is using tour de france any different?
It would be interesting to to see you pair it with as close to the consoles GPU as possible and see how games run, investigating the mystical "console optimization" angle vs just running the same hardware on PC
Always heard it repeated that the Series X/PS5 CPU is equivalent to a 3700X, despite evidence to the contrary. Glad to see that rumor finally put to rest. Since 2018 I have went from a 2700X to 3800X to 5800X3D all in the same pc and motherboard. AM4 was an amazing platform!
well here in DF video, he mentions how the ps5 was actually the AMD 4700s.. and the XSX higher CPU ( no variable, higher core GHZ, + 16 core CPU capable.. DUH its better) makes it a AMD 4800s distinction... In this video, in the beginning, he mentions about the old AMD 4700s tests.. and how we was "DISSAPOINTED" (ps5) yet in these tests above XSX AMD4800s ^ very similar to Ryzen 7 even, not like 200-400% higher nah... and most the other high end CPUs it was beating 15-25% or equal^, or losing 5%. I am SURPRISED. Just like in the video they mention they are "surprised" by XSX performance of just CPU chip, i am sure the FURTHER limitation of the PS5 chip didn't show same level of performance.
Well, the PERFORMANCE is equivalent to a 3700X but the chip itself isn't. There's a simple reason for that : On PC I/O is handled by the CPU unless there's DirectStorage. On Xbox the I/O is handled by a dedicated I/O unit. Therefore it frees up overhead when used on an Xbox while the exact same CPU on PC performs slower due to I/O.
A big reason why the 4800S suffers is the GDDR memory. That is less an issue on a console where that memory is shared, and suffers less from swapping to and from the GPU. Lots of latency issues there.
yeah it's really meant to be in the console these CPUs(shared 16 gb gddr6+Velocity split memory arch) to get MOST out of them, but the STRAIGHT POWER of the XSX ( the ps5 AMD 4700s not so much from their own words ^ ) cpu here is SHOWN , even with the memory not being shared here like in consoles.. the XSX cpu here really shines... good job DF for saying both ps5 and XSX do good, but you were little dissapointed by PS5 cpu DUHH. they even need less cooling on top ( less power/cores)
@@TheAllhailben7 performance doesnt have to do with memory alone the consoles only have 16gb of shared vram while to match console settings in games nowadays you need at least a 10gb card plus 16gb of ram
DF actually made me smarter on gaming PC's and gaming in general I'm able to hold A tech conversation now and know what I'm talking about lol. Their videos are the highest quality and they explain everything.
the power limits is probably what makes de CPU underperform, consoles like PS5 and XsX usually take 220w during heavy gameplay from the wall, while PCs that's just the GPU alone and some intel CPUs can even go beyond that
It's very interesting seeing how large the performance differences can be just due to cache and memory configuration. I had no idea the console CPU could fall so far behind in some games.
Yeah. VRAM trades low latency to support massive file transfers for a GPU to handle, but the cpu still has to move that stuff into the GPU memory for it. The CPU chokes on that lower latency because x86 CPUs are designed for fast transfers.
@@codethis2875 "Console optimizations" are mostly just a myth in my experience. You can't just optimize your way past a cache and memory latency bottleneck without dramatically changing the code being run. There's a reason the performance results he's seeing are pretty much in line with how these games run on the consoles and this also perfectly explains why Starfield's minimum system requirements call for a CPU that's seemingly significantly slower than this chip.
@@TheAllhailben7Yeah, as we’ve seen with mobile platforms, you can make up for high latency RAM (such as LPDDR5) with lots of cache, but in the case of the consoles, the GPU takes up a lion’s share of die space, so including the cache isn’t super practical.
ive been with a sour mouth from the jaguar chips from last gen and i was happy to know that this gen ,consoles would get "grown man" cpus.Even with power and thermals concerns im glad to know that ,at least, the performance is close with popular desktop counterpart.
this was great.. but I was expecting to see side by side comparisons with an actual Series X. Why not? I understand comparing with other computer-based cpu's.. but since it was supposed to be the actual cpu in the series x.. would have been great to see to be thorough.
@@antont4974 they've compared consoles side by side... like ps5 vs series x in past videos.. they could have gotten numbers for series x. hopefully they'll do a followup video
Likely because many games run fairly stable on the consoles at this point, games like Rainbow Six Siege with truly unlocked FPS options are a rarity on consoles and drops from FPS targets are fairly uncommon on most polished titles anymore.
That kind of kit with integrated GPU and unified memory could be the perfect solution for Valve and their effort to consolize the gaming PC with their OS, especially with their OS where they can do similar magic than with proton so the memory can be spefcially addressed
Cool. Quite nice that they also use the stock AM4 cooler mount (and cooler) on this one. If this didn't have chopped up vector units, the massive bandwith would probably have some good uses.
Richard, at 15:21 you forgot to mention I/O handling. On Xbox there's a dedicated I/O unit for decompression & I/O handling. On 4800S the I/O is handled by the CPU adding additional overhead.
Do you have a source for that? As far as i can tell, it just has a normal south bridge. The PS5 on the other hand has a dedicated SSD controller that can do decompression. It was marketed by sony itself.
@@nikkopt You can read more Xbox' dedicated I/O unit on the official Xbox News article about the Velocity Engine or the hotchips deep dive from 2020. Moreover every Sony & Microsoft console since 6th gen has dedicated I/O processors. This includes PS2, PS3, PS4, PS5 & every Xbox. I'm not sure about Nintendo consoles but it wouldn't surprise me if it has I/O processors too.
@@xenuCS The 9th generation is the only one where the devs claim any kind of decompression acceleration. The other are just south bridges. Sure it can be called a processor since it processes data, but it offers no acceleration or offloading from the cpu.
@@nikkopt It might be the first time you heard of I/O processors but it's far from being the first generation with dedicated I/O. PS2's I/P processor ran at 33-36Mhz with 2-4MB RAM on a 32-bit bus. Back then this was enough to offload all IO tasks from the CPU.
Would be interesting to make this 4800s into a full series x comparable pc. Including a comparable gpu and nvme ssd like SX uses and test it with Sony PC games. R&C, Spider-man, TLoU...
A PC that is comparable to a PS5/Series X. AMD Ryzen 5 3600 / Intel Core i7-11700. AMD RX 6700 / AMD RX 6800 / Nvidia RTX 2070 Super / RTX 3060 ti / RTX 4060 16 GB of DDR4 @ 3200 MHz+. NVME SSD. PS5 GPU: 2304 Cores. 144 TMUS. 64 ROPS. 256 Bit Bus Width. 16 GB of GDDR6 that is shared between the CPU and GPU. So effectively 8-10 GB depending on what you are doing with your game; With an additional 512 MB DDR4 to run the OS and all related OS tasks. Hybrid RDNA 1+2 Xbox Series X GPU: 3328 Cores. 208 TMUS. 64 ROPS. 320 Bit Bus Width. Dedicated 10 GB of GDDR6. With an additional 6 GB GDDR6/192 Bit Bus Width Allocated specifically to the CPU, for a total of 16 GB. Hybrid RDNA 1+2 AMD Radeon RX 6700: 2304 Cores. ( Matching PS5 ) 144 TMUS. ( Matching PS5 ) 64 ROPS. ( Matching PS5 and Xbox Series ) 160 Bit Bus Width. ( Does not match PS5 ) 10 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds/matches what is actually available to the PS5 and Xbox Series X GPUs in real world scenarios. ) AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT: 2560 Cores. ( Exceeds PS5 / Does not match Xbox Series ) 160 TMUS. ( Exceeds P55 / Does not match Xbox Series ) 64 ROPS. ( Matches PS5 / Matches Xbox Series ) 192 Bit Bus Width. ( Does not match PS5 or Xbox Series ) 12 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds what is actually available to the PS5 and Xbox Series X GPUs in real world scenarios. ) AMD Radeon RX 6800: 3840 Cores. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 ) 240 TMUS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 ) 96 ROPS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 ) 256 Bit Bus Width. ( Does not match Xbox Series X, matches PS5 ) 16 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds what is actually available to the Xbox Series X and PS5 GPUs in real world scenarios. ) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX: 6144 Cores. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 ) 384 TMUS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 ) 192 ROPS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 ) 384 Bit Bus Width. ( Exceeds PS5 and matches Xbox Series GPU Spec ) 24 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 ) There, I answered it for you.
The Ryzen cores on both Xbox Series and PS5 are mammoth processors compared to last generation Jaguar cores. Jaguar cores were created for low powered laptops with no gaming efficiencies in mind. Nevertheless, both generation GPU's are low power processors that are missing many of the large cache features available in desktop CPUs. Regardless of this test, this generation consoles have not been remotely utilized to their potential when you consider what last generation Jaguar core consoles could actually run.
Good to know a 7800X3D is absolutely sure to double the consoles' CPU performances, accounting for the console optimizations. I can't wait to buy one :D
I suspect a lot more performance than double, considering the 7600 none x3d is delivering such high performance, a 7800x3d would be a monster in comparison to what consoles can offer, at least doubling in performance, but I suspect it will be closer to double and half or even 3 times the performance.
well this was of XSX it says it on the Title of video... Did you watch the video? he exclaims mostly + and - of "XSX" cpu.. In first few seconds, he mentions this test was done before with PS5... AMD 4700s not this AMD 4800s and it was "dissapointing" So.. no... this is not the performance of the new consoles SORRY i know its not so far, 25-45% maybe.. but THIS is XSX cpu.
@@slavche Doesn't change the fact that consoles are outdated crap anyway. They have been for a very long time compared to what's possible on a good PC (let alone all the other advantage a PC has. Consoles really only exist for small children and poor losers who can't afford a PC)
You can't confirm the CPU console performance. All those tests are made without a dedicated I/O unit and with much slower memory. You can't compare it 1:1.
I think with Plague Tale you are seeing the one disadvantage of running software on a SOC at higher wattages. I think they had to lessen the CPU run time to give power and thermel headroom for the GPU rendering not to starve. I did write this before you mentioned the shared bandwidth, which is also another good point.
the biggest problem is the fact that the pcie lanes are thinked to be on the console, because the majority of the bus is used for the inside gpu, but having it disabilitated have the cpu share a narrow pcie bandwith that should be used only for memory and ssd to have the best performance to have it shared to a graphics card, a wifi card and more
Quite suprising, I suspected series x CPU is on par with ryzen 3600 but seeing tht procesor beating console part by 60% is quite a suprise. No wonder most console games are 30 fps locked again.
32mb cache for 6 cores on 3600 is the main reason, but for games developed for consoles in the future 3600 might be slower. I still can't run Last of Us and Ratchet and clank at stable 60 fps on 3600x.
I think you also have to factor in all the parts of the Series that are not on this board, like the audio block, the decompression block, etc, that really save a lot of CPU cycles for the Series S. As far as I can tell, this CPU was doing all those CPU intensive aspects, that the CPU in the Series S/X would not have to do.
I would love to see comparisons with steam deck, ROG Ally, the One S etc. See how far the Gen on Gen leap was. See how far ahead it compares to handhelds etc.
I suspect by the time the Steam Deck 2 is released, it will be easy for Valve to offer at least double the performance over the Deck 1, and probally a lot more on the cpu side because the ROG Ally already blows away the Deck on cpu performance being as it's 8 cores and newer gen, whereas on the gpu side, it's a more modest improvement of around 30-50% over the Deck. Assuming Valve release a Deck 2 by 2025, cpu performance could be around 3 times faster over the Deck 1, gpu performance will be at least double, probably double and half, memory and SSD's are dropping a lot lately, that it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up with 32GB of DDR5 memory and a much bigger and faster SSD drive. If Valve can keep the price down, and say release it around the time Nintendo releases a Switch 2, it could start to slowly eat into their market share, especially because by the time the Deck is released, the software and hardware will be a lot more mature, and unlike the Deck 1, the Deck 2 won't have to prove its self as a new concept, basically, more are likely to buy a Deck 2 because it's a lot more mature and it's proven its self with the Deck 1, which is how reputation and growth always happens and why I've always said that the Deck 1 will never be a threat to Nintendo, but the Deck 2, 3 or 4 could be.
Looking at these numbers, it slowly seems like we are hitting the point where consoles no longer really benefit from more specific optimizations compared to maybe prior generations. At least on the CPU side. In that sense, consoles really are becoming locked down pc's with fixed hardware. Makes you wonder, how Valve would be able to do if they themselves released a steam box which would be closer to current gen consoles, just with a bit of a half-generation leap. Next to the steam deck.
It is amazing what these components can do with a low level access software, I had the same impression after discovering the first Xbox had a Celeron processor. Would like to see the same treatment for PC games, we already have Vulkan.
The PS5 zen2 cores aren't 100% the same as the vanilla ones. Not only they have less cache but the floating point units are also cut down to make space in the die. It's possible there are changes in the Xbox cores as well. Also, i can't seem to find a picture of the backside of the board to see if it has RAM chips there. It if doesn't, it has a narrower bus width compared to the Xbox. 4 modules probably puts it at 192bit, while 6 modules on the Xbox run at 320bit (the other 4 at 192bit)
FP is pretty useless for gaming, int perf is what really matters, Sony are not dumb. you can clearly see a strong correlation between INT perf and gaming most fp workloads would be diverted to the GPU anyways, GPU's are FP monsters
@@codethis2875 even a fast google search would prove you're just spitting nonsense. Quoting one website "Floating point numbers permeate almost every area of game programming. They are used to represent everything from position, velocity, and acceleration, to fuzzy AI variables, texture coordinates, and colors." . If there are useless, why would every gaming console since the N64 included a FPU? Also, not everything can be offloaded to the GPU. If it cannot be parallelized or there is overhead by having to transfer data between the CPU and GPU constantly, it will be done on the CPU. The first quake video game required a FPU and won't run on CPU's without one.
Great video Rich! It's mind blowing how much better pc hardware is compared to consoles and that games still barely manage to get a similar performance on PC. Not sure if we have a single PC exclusive title which can really showcase these differences. Throwing in the 5600X3D could have been interesting to get some extra perspective gen on gen and also on how much extra performance we can expect from the extra cache.
Really interesting video. It helped me to understand how the consoles are still very different to a PC setup, despite consoles becoming more PC-like in recent generations. How similar are the X and S CPUs? I understand they are both Zen2 chips but would it be possible to also look at this 4800S as a Series S CPU to help explain some of the differences and compromises between S and X?
A console refresh with zen 3 cpu could give a great boost to this console gen. I imagine that’s where they’ll make most of their money. Pair that with a modest gpu upgrade to memory bandwidth, clockspeed, maybe an unlocked compute unit from better yields. Add in fsr 2.2 support and that is a compelling upgrade without breaking the bank. It also sets the consoles further ahead of current handhelds which are rapidly evolving and competing for gamer dollars.
My friend and I been gaming on the 3800x for a few years now and we been happy with the performance for the most part, it's a bit better than this cpu. I also have a 3900x pc that's also been a good cpu for my needs.
@@dylanzachary683 looking at graphs and benchmarks recently, I'd say it's not a bad idea for both of us to upgrade. With Permission if funds are available of course. .
I'd like to see some Sony games, especially ones like Ratchet and Clank and Spiderman Remastered since they do have issues with decompression and such.
Lack of drivers, particularly for the iGPU, and various security measures on the XSX that would prevent anyone from doing such a thing. I always thought that it would be interesting if AMD put an equivalent-to-Series X SOC+motherboard+RAM on the market supported by proper drivers etc. for enthusiasts, but unlikely to happen because they would need to charge too much for it in order to turn a profit.
After all the "New Beta patch could give hopes for a 60fps mode for Starfield on Xbox Series X" articles online: Now the patch is final and out on PC and console, It would be very interesting to test Starfield on this exact 4800S part Rich. An Investigation to uncover if a 60FPS (or at least a 40FPS patch) could become a reality for Xbox Series X would be a very interesting episode that a lot of DF subscribers would be exited for ✌
Interesting video, The CPU of the PS5 and Series X seems more like a Ryzen 4800U mobile with slightly lower clock speeds. It would be intriguing to conduct tests with this Chinese board that has the Series X APU and a CPU like the 4800U or 4600H, as well as the Ryzen Zen+ desktop series like 2600X, 2700X.
A 6700 (non XT) is closer to the GPU in the console though. Same RDNA2 and same number of cores. You just need to do a slight underclock and it’s basically the same GPU.
Great video. Just a couple years ago there was talk of the consoles surpassing standard PC hardware. Now an entry 7600 blows the whole console generation out of the water!
Ehh, the PS5 was middle of the pack on release and Nvidia released the 3080 before the PS5 did. Current PS5 Pro speculation puts it at the level of maybe the 3080 in more optimistic rumors.
@@mitsuhh console comparable gpus always cost more than the console. See X1800xl in 05, Geforce 2 in 2000, etc. Only post PS3 did console makers have the audacity to release them for 500+. Gamecube came out for 200. Saturn is the sole exception over 300.
Could we actually use this bench for Starfield once the PC version comes out? XD Assuming there are no major outstanding stability problems with the PC version on release at least.
give it an rx6700 an compare it against a series X on plague tale requiem and other unlocked frame rate games. let's see how representative of the console's performance this really is
I would had liked to see it paired with a Series X RDNA2 equivalent GPU. Also, I always knew that the lack of Zen 3 on consoles would make them obsolete very fast.
I hope future consoles include larger caches, not necessarily stacked dies, but just more cache. Maybe 3D V-Cache will be cheaper over time if the cache is made on older nodes. Stick to 8-core, add v-cache, everything else into GPU (and hardware accelerated AI, RT, etc). I don't want to see any "Pro" consoles this gen since I don't think AMD has any tech worth adding to a console at an affordable cost at the moment.
Great video, super cool hardware to see! Would be interesting to see it paired with a AMD 6700 (non xt) to see almost as close as we can the pure performance/power the Series X has
Some notes: PCIE bandwidth is pretty limited at 4X vs what would have to be 16X on the actual console, and the Series X RAM is split between 10GB of faster memory, and 6GB of slower memory. I'm sure it's just used as one big pool with no separation for gaming performance.
Id like to see you benchmark Starfield using the 4800S and see if you can hit 60FPS on PC using a Series X equivalent GPU. We all know it wont be identical to console as the optimisation is superior but it would give us a rough idea.
@@aboriginalmang Isn't Flight Simulator notorious for only being 1 CPU core dependent? I thought that game did not spread the load very well, perhaps it has been updated to take better use of more cores. I would bet Starfield is using as many cores as it can, it seems very CPU dependent.
Interesting video and piece of Tech Seems like AMD found a way to monetize a the discarded hardware but its more like gimmick stuff rather than anyone looking to do decent gaming would buy.
@Digital Foundry I wonder, is it possible for DF to get an idea about the difference between approaches of optimisation for PC and consoles? And, more importantly, to share it with us? Such knowledge from game developers or game engine engineers could be very interesting for folks who are familiar with software engineering.
Xbox Series X is extremely underrated in the gaming world I just have the S and after Xbox latest update everything looks and feels better like 10X better I can only imagine how it looks on the X. I'm building A gaming PC next year and I'm comparing gaming PC's to my Series S and I'm shocked at how the S holds up with PC's with games looking better on my S! I know its better to have PC but for me to outperform my S and X I have to spend thousands.
He isn't exaggerating, when you consider the fact that you have to spend at least $1k more than the cost of a Series X, to play games at similar or marginally better fidelity. Yes, the PC components technically trounce the Series X, but when the games run like shit on the PC, who cares?
@@TheUballeare you serious?! Do you really how compressed and upscaled everything is on a Series X?!! I bet your really think WZ2 is running full on 4k @ 120 fps too 🤣🤣🤣 Ive had my series x for a year & a half a d nothing has impressed me about it other than it boots quick & the menus run well.
@@luiscanales696don't tell people that they believe it takes $2000 to $3000 to beat them I have 2 PCs I've built myself for $1000 and $1500 but you can build a great PC for $700-$800 easy
Cold War runs 120fps on Xbox Series X / PlayStation 5 which is significantly higher than what can be achieved using the same Cpu on Pc and that’s simply because of Console optimization where the desktop 4700s / 4800s is never gonna gonna be able to perform as good as the Consoles even if it’s the same exact chip
Agreed, the test was interesting in the sense of what can these CPUs do in a "PC", but there is so much more to these consoles, that alleviate CPU overhead, that it is pointless to compare what a Series X can do, to this kit. They are really two different things.
Great video. Very enjoyable. I think there’s not enough said about trusting consumers generally. XSX is such good value but especially if devs don’t remove edgy or borderline performance options. Consoles aren’t just for idiots, they’re also for gamers on a budget. Especially in a PVE only game, let me decide if I hate the frame pacing when frame rate it unlocked. Maybe in Starfield during space battles I might get 40fps. Or maybe I’d be happy to play in 720p or maybe I’m insensitive to stutter or able to ignore it. But ignoring Starfield - games that can crack the VRR threshold, give me sliders or curate a 3rd option called “VRR Mode” because some of us stumped up for fancy TVs and you reviewers basically sending the message to devs “Make it a perfect 60hz or drop rez or lock it at 30, nothing else” is frustrating to me esp when it works ie. you got the resolution reduced in Valhalla. That was all you. While I’m sitting here with my new telly going “Guys!” VRR guys. There’s VRR on consoles now.
At 720p, the game would be very CPU reliant, and it's not good for a CPU bottlenecked system like the Xbox. The small framerate gain wouldn't be worth it for most people. If its like cyberpunk, then its probably running on 800p upscaled on xbox series S, and you could expect that kind of performance if youre running it at 720p on the series X, it wouldnt be much better.
It's funny the Xbox series S was such an amazing value but the hardware is aging so badly devs are complaining about having to optimize for it. If you look up the specs it's BAD and probably affects a lot of dev time for XSX. A 60fps cap option should be easy to enable but a game like starfield i imagine would be heavily CPU bound so they don't want the PR of having choppy framerates. Also VRR can go below 30 now with LFR which effectively displays the frames twice to still fit into VRR ( consoles need to be updated to support this).
@@Mickice No, AMD CPUs enjoy faster/lower latency RAM, in this instance, the memory for both PS5 and Series X is the same. 14gbps, only Microsoft split theirs into 2 "chunks" one with 560GBs bandwidth the other with 336GBs bandwidth. This won't affect the CPU performance between the two at all.
Overall still not a terrible deal to buy a Series X versus a gaming PC especially since most of the time PC ports of console games runs terrible for months before it gets patched multiple times. Thanks Rich, didn’t know this product even existed. Amazing how much Zen 3 improved over everything that came before it.
Yes and no. If your really casual and prefer the convince, then sure Xbox is hard to beat. If you want unrestricted access to emulators, multiple store fronts, upgradability, PC is still where it's at. Also, everything else you can do with a proper open ecosystem.
That's some cope right there. 700 bucks (100 for the cost of online) gets you a pretty decent PC these days. Spent a few hundred more and it will beat an X significantly
When I was considering the costs for the series x be it the services and extra addons like storage, in a couple years id spend the same amount I payed for My gaming PC which has a R5 5600x, consoles use upscaling anyways so getting a gpu that can do the same performance isnt that expensive. Getting a gaming PC just makes more sense imo. Better bang for the buck would be to get a One X for cheap cause 90% of the games youd play on the series are there too.
The whole advantage of the APU is the higher-than-typical number of GPU cores and shared memory. Would be interested in seeing the Series X running Windows games...but just having the CPU part of it doesn't really do anything for me.
The Sega Master System CPU would absolutely destroy all current and future graphics cards. They would be too much of a bottleneck for the SMS CPU, the world would implode causing global warming levels never before seen by mankind and socko.
@@silverwerewolf975and still that PS5 console she has defended herself against the XSX and STILL is beating that Xbox consolés on most of multiplatform games , we are all witness of that
They dont need to upgrade the CPU and they wont. Consoles are always trying to sell Resolution vs Framerate. They didnt upgrade the Jaguar CPU back then even if it was the real bottleneck. Their CPU will be overclocked as fck and they will put a GPU with double the Tflops and sell it as a proper 4k/120 or 8k/60 and thats it 😂
They we're saying than PS5 PRO is gonna use combinations between RDNA 3 and RDNA 4 features, from that came out the RDNA 3.5 name from what all are hearing from the new PS5 than sony is gonna launch in 2024 according to no oficcial sources and the youtube chanel red gaming tech as well , and this zen 4 than PS5 PRO was going to use it was going to be ZEN 4C and NOT the tradicional ZEN 4, Microsoft not Say a Word about a new upgraded Xbox because they we're no demand for one with he s people according to them
@@Joaaaaaaaaaaa PS4 pro launched before Zen, Xbox One X was competing with PS4 Pro so opted out of Ryzen. However, now there's really no reason not to improve the cpu performance with a mid gen refresh. It would help hold those higher frame rates so they can patch quality/ray tracing modes to run at 60/120 fps as well. Last little tidbit as well, while normal graphics performance gains wouldn't really justify a mid gen console refresh. It won't matter, because the ray tracing performance gains would. Ray tracing which is not only computationally heavy on the GPU but also the CPU.
whats kinda crazy is the series x cpu seemingly gets whipped by even the latest handhelds today at ridiculously low wattage. kinda goes to show that handhelds have been more than OP when it comes to the cpu and its the gpu thats always been lacking for the longest time... kind of begs the question why the cpu element keeps getting upgraded in handhelds rather than pushing more of the silicone towards more CU's. Perhaps its an indication that the cpu may once again be the set back for consoles over the next few years, doubt it though with the focus clearly being on higher res lower framerate.
There’s two big reasons why so many handhelds have been targeting stronger and stronger CPUs. 1: Strong CPUs consume far less power than GPUs do. 2: Prior to the Steam Deck, high-end handhelds were best suited for emulation, which is much more CPU-reliant than GPU-reliant. RPCS3 especially.
because they use laptop apus which have a focus on cpu rather than gpu thats why the steam deck with its custom console like apu had a better gpu than all handhelds when it came out but a significantly weaker cpu
@@JulioHernandez-nn8oz Is the same only PS5 has less cpu clockspeed Maybe 300 mhz. but that doesn't make a significant difference in Gaming Performance. Gpu clock speed does anyway cpu multicore performance. both trash compared to intel or zen3 to be honest.
@@JulioHernandez-nn8oz ps5 has sub system I/O much of the streaming data handled there, so cpu requirement to stream data a little bit less compared to pc and xboxsx
Even if mid-gen refresh console(s) use Zen4c the performance jump will be huge. A modest clock increase to 4.2ghz could provide an extra ~50% perf boost. That's being conservative too. I know MS has said they have no plans for a refresh. But, if Sony makes a PS5 Pro I can't see MS not responding. I would rather see both companies use the absolute latest Zen5/RDNA 4 combo even if it means waiting an extra year or so. In the meantime I hope that FSR 3 frame-gen will work on RDNA 2 and breathe extra life into PS5 and Xbox Series.
@@luiscanales696 I believe these consoles are about 350-400 euro.... Stands to reason that a machine that's considerable more expensive performs better.
It's amazing how different things can be when there is a dedicated CPU and GPU and everything isn't sharing bandwidth and memory. I know there are certainly cost concerns, but I feel like consoles could be so much better for longer if they stopped using integrated everything.
Wouldn't change much if they used separate CPU and GPU. They'd be more expensive to produce, would sell for more and wouldn't be that much faster at all considering cost and power constraints
this is such awesome work Rich...very, very, nice...and it gives some interesting insight on why the developers/Microsoft are making some decisions around framerates, settings, etc with the Series platform (with a couple exceptions of course).
Outside of market share what is the reason for games playing better on PS5? With XSX being FULL RDNA 2 and PS5 being a Heavily Neutered RDNA 2.. No LFC VRS MESH SHADERS SAMPLER FEEDBACK AND MOST OF ALL NO FREESYNC.. What is going on? Outside of the PS5 being TRUE M.2 with TRUE PCIe gen4 speeds(5.5 GB/s) over Xbox CFExpress More PCIe Gen3 speeds(2.4 GB/s) there is nothing special about the PS5.. HOW does Mark Cut Corners Cerny make Weaker Neutered consoles but manage to perform better.. In the WORDS of the LATE GREAT Mr. Spock: "This is Highly illogical"
@@Nemesis2446 ir something than mark cerny DID with the PS5 hardware than we don't know and XSX shows everything back on 2020 with the BC pack , the Xbox velocity arquitecture and the directx12 and PS5 doesn t , and the strange stuff is than we don't know what cerny DID with the PS5 arquitecture yet , the oddle kraken decompression and the SSD M2 gen internal expansión bay is something but other stuff? That s a mistery , don't surprise than developers are saying since 3 years ago than the Playstation 5 have the best hardware arquitecture when is all about consolés surpassing the XSX hardware arquitecture, Sony is hiding something from THIS and we don't know that yet
Devs are paying much more attention to ,,market leader" leaving XSX much less time. Plus it have better hardware so they use that as cutting corners measure with hope that it will brute force acceptable results
@@damianabregba7476 Xbox have 3 years to put it to catch up with video game developers and create games for xbox, there are no excuses for xbox after almost 3 years, playstation took 6 months ahead with its development kits for video game developers to create games for playstation, but here with xbox there are no more excuses after almost 3 years these 2 consoles are already on the market, xbox should have gotten their act together with their development kits to this day but still nothing and in a bad way it is very strange, even now They had said that the xbox series consoles would have bottlenecks to create games on it, especially in XSX and XSS, something that with PS5 video game developers say the opposite of it when it comes to bottlenecks and say that PS5 does not have the same that XSX and XSS have to this day, and yet back on 2020 they are saying than PS5 has the Best hardware arquitecture on consoles surpassing the XSX hardware arquitecture when is all about for game developers and for create Games , THERE ARE NO EXCUSES WITH XBOX NOW AFTER A TIME IN THE PAST
@@damianabregba7476 PS5 does have some better aspects. Again the True M.2 SSD with PCIe gen4 is absolutely great it is on the same level as high-end PCs.. It's true brilliance is the right way to do a storage Solution.. I commend PlayStation for that.. I technically got more direct usable storage space at faster speeds on my PS5 for less money then I do my XSX that came STOCK with 1TB... as far as that goes PlayStation is a dominator. But as far as the actual architecture and the architecture feature set and the hardware itself it's completely under XSX.. I have a feeling it's because PlayStation makes absolute Banger games and because they have the market share they don't really try as hard on the hardware. Where as Xbox has to really overcompensate via the hardware because they make such lackluster games while almost completely relying on 3rd-party Developers which unfortunately cater to market share leader. Also Xbox mainly is selling OLD content as NEW content. But realistically Games should load faster giving better Proformance on PS5 but actually play better at higher resolution higher fidelity on XSX.. Developers are not using technology like VRS MESH SHADERS SAMPLER FEEDBACK which are honestly game changers and are designed for lower-powered Hardware because PS has NONE of thouse RNDA 2 features in it..
I had thought that because the Xbox CPU is not as fast, the Xbox CPU would not perform as well as the Xbox CPU on Windows due to the difference in driver overhead and the large file access overhead of Windows, but this did not seem to be the case.
Iteresting until you realize Zen 3 5600 is missing on the comaprison...c'mon it has 32 mb of chache totally accessible and a big jump over the 3600...and lower latency than 7600 Zen4
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
I think a lot of people forget (or never fully realized) that early Zen really was never particularly fast; its advantages were lots of cores for cheap, and then they added in efficiency when they hit 7nm with Zen 2, but were still behind the Intel ST performance curve. It wasn't until Zen 3 that AMD really started to challenge Intel in ST.
perfectly true , but this show how big of an evolution amd had in last years . FX8000 vs i7 2/3gen = 2x power consumption for worse performance , now 7800x3d vs 13900k = better performance in games for almost half power consumption
@@istealpopularnamesforlikes3340 I had 1600af , 3600 and now 5800x3d ... each upgrade was really big and noticable , and it would be all on 1 motherboard if asus b350 didn't died on me ;P
Still use 1600af on my backup / tinkering rig and if you don't need high refresh rate gaming it's still a powerhouse . Jumped to 1600af from i5 8400 and newere regreted .
calling it "never particularly fast" is playing it a bit fast, e.g the 1600x have a single core performance that is 90% of that of the Core i5-7600K while costing 90% so price:single-core-perf was 1:1. So when the first Ryzen where released it was quite close to Intel and quite close is not "never particularly fast" unless one also means that the Intels of the time was also "never particularly fast". Ofc later Intel CPU:s where faster than the first gen of Ryzen but that is just the name of game, it should be compared with the CPU:s that existed when it was released and not what came long time after.
nah, early ryzen had competitive single thread performance. it was a bit slower than intel, but it was on the same ballpark. something AMD couldn't manage ever since the core2 architecture first came out. the thing is they didn't rest on their laurels and kept improving it to the point that it SEEMS slow now.
Zen 1s biggest strength was its Multithreaded performance which destroyed Intel's HEDT line up over night by basically selling similar multicore performance at about a quarter of the price or so.
I'd be interested to see testing with a more console equivalent GPU. Would love to see how it stacks up against the concole version of the game
Well obviously worse. There's no dedicated I/O unit on PC so the I/O overhead will put additional stress on CPU or GPU (depending on DirectStorage on/off). Xbox has a dedicated I/O unit so it will perform better. Moreover the 4800S has a much slower memory bandwidth in comparison.
This would be the ultimate test to see how much the console optimization impacts performance. 4800S + RX6700XT + Gen 3.0 NVMe would be a pretty comparable machine on paper.
@@xenuCS Yeap, these are always pointless comparisons because the console hardware and customisation simply cannot be matched from off the shelf Pc parts, so pointleess.
PS5 Gpu equal is a RX6700 10GB according to most sites..not sure on Series X..could say 6700XT Ballpark maybe
@@the_unded6173 ps5 is not equal to any pc gpu because its a custom rdna 1 and 2 hybrid ps5 closest gpu would be a 6600xt while series x a 6700
Would be nice to see this (with a GPU in the ballpark of Series X) compared to an actual Xbox Series X, to see how much optimization helps (or not) the console.
I was thinking of a 6700xt or 6650xt
That would be much more interesting. The performance of these console CPUs compared to current ones which are two generations ahead shouldn't be a surprise to anyone
No, what we all really want is a way to hack the Xbox Series X. It is a seriously fast CPU and GPU for the money. If somehow we can get a build of Windows10 Pro run on it properly, I can see people start to pick these up as budget HTPC option. Even better if it was a hardware hack, allowing you to dualboot between WindowsOS and XboxOS.
It's technically possible, but whether it is probable is a whole nother thing.
@@rickysargulesh1053 its a 2080 / 6700
Same, I was hoping for 1:1 comparisons with the same settings.
I just LOVE Rich's video analysis. They are just amazing, so much passion, so much knowledge and delivered in an impeccable communication style, always professional yet smooth.
Congratulations Rich, you are absolutely one of the BEST EVER in your field. Hats off to You Sir !
Man, I'm already waiting for yet another awesome DF 3-way comparison: Rich on this Series X APU, John on 4700S/PS5 APU and Alex on his midrange PC (Ryzen 5 3600 + RTX 2070 Super).
@@tulponatixthe most cope comment I have seen
@@tulponatix They just showed this junk does not run as well as an R5 3600 (6 core, 12 thread). Steve from Gamers Nexus said the GPU in this console was about the same as a GTX 1060, 1070 at best.
@@ragingmonk6080
Well it appears Steve was wrong.
Because Xbox One X is between 1060 and 1070.
You must have heard him wrong.
Or he made an honest mistake.
Or he is plain stupid.
Because it would mean that Xbox Series X is the same as Xbox One X,which would make no sense whatsoever.
It is also possible he was talking about Series S.
@@GameslordXY The Xbox One X was worse than a RX 480 and if a Series X is GTX 1060 / 1070 that would place it at GTX 1060ti level or a little more. That is a generational gain.
He was testing the Series X not S. He is a professional and is trusted. He did not make a mistake, you did.
The Xbox One X was so bad that when the series x launched Digital foundry made fun of how dismal the performance was.
You people have to realize that the console is three to five years behind PC. AMD sells leftovers to consoles and that is why they are cheap. AMD made what they could off of PC and will cash out on the end.
None of us are getting anything for free. Not from AMD, Nvidia, Intel, Sony or Microsoft. You get what you pay for.
@@joa6336 You're the one coping here (plus you're drinking the Kool-Aid).
I think this will be great to test when starfield comes out , to see if it can actually hold 60 fps or what settings - if any - would allow it to do so
Good idea
probably similar to star citizen in the video they made about starfield using a 3600 it holds around 60fps in empty gpu bound areas and cities cpu bound it could drop into the teens but obviously it will be better dropping into the 30s most likely
It's tough to look forward to a new title these days. Let's see how it plays before building up our expectations.
New high end cpus have like 3-4x the console performance, graphics cards probably even more but we still don't see a single game that could showcase these differences. It's nice that we get some console ports to play with on PC (something is better than nothing) but I don't exactly get hyped about the performance or visual fidelity they offer. If anything they rather lower our expectations about what should be possible on PC.
Yeah, that would be interesting to see, I'd watch that!
@@H4GRlD Well, they _did_ delay it for 10 months. Hopefully that was for polish.
Another technical tour de force from Rich!
What?
@@autodidact7127you do not know what the "tour de France" is? Bruh, talk about limited vocabulary 🗿
@@thatoneguywholovesthena-4529 probably a 'murican
Damn this whole thread came after me. Tour de force is hyperbolic. What about this video was a tour de force? Rich explaining another CPUs relatability to an Xbox? Or are you saying rich is technically super capable by making a video about a CPU? Or is the CPU technically super capable? I disagree with you. Y'all regarde ça de près!
@@autodidact7127 since you know what a tour de france is, then i guess it wont be a stretch to replace that with the word roller coaster right? if you go on a roller coaster of events wont it be a great use of the phrase in this context? then how is using tour de france any different?
It would be interesting to to see you pair it with as close to the consoles GPU as possible and see how games run, investigating the mystical "console optimization" angle vs just running the same hardware on PC
Spoiler for you the console version will run better
Always heard it repeated that the Series X/PS5 CPU is equivalent to a 3700X, despite evidence to the contrary. Glad to see that rumor finally put to rest. Since 2018 I have went from a 2700X to 3800X to 5800X3D all in the same pc and motherboard. AM4 was an amazing platform!
It's actually a bit faster here in this board than it would be in the console as well. The power limits are different by a good amount with no gpu.
I also thought it untill I realize the console CPU has a much lower cache size, and today I'm learning about RAM latency problems.
Even a 3600 is better xd
well here in DF video, he mentions how the ps5 was actually the AMD 4700s.. and the XSX higher CPU ( no variable, higher core GHZ, + 16 core CPU capable.. DUH its better) makes it a AMD 4800s distinction...
In this video, in the beginning, he mentions about the old AMD 4700s tests.. and how we was "DISSAPOINTED" (ps5) yet in these tests above XSX AMD4800s ^ very similar to Ryzen 7 even, not like 200-400% higher nah... and most the other high end CPUs it was beating 15-25% or equal^, or losing 5%. I am SURPRISED. Just like in the video they mention they are "surprised" by XSX performance of just CPU chip, i am sure the FURTHER limitation of the PS5 chip didn't show same level of performance.
Well, the PERFORMANCE is equivalent to a 3700X but the chip itself isn't. There's a simple reason for that : On PC I/O is handled by the CPU unless there's DirectStorage. On Xbox the I/O is handled by a dedicated I/O unit. Therefore it frees up overhead when used on an Xbox while the exact same CPU on PC performs slower due to I/O.
A big reason why the 4800S suffers is the GDDR memory. That is less an issue on a console where that memory is shared, and suffers less from swapping to and from the GPU. Lots of latency issues there.
yeah it's really meant to be in the console these CPUs(shared 16 gb gddr6+Velocity split memory arch) to get MOST out of them, but the STRAIGHT POWER of the XSX ( the ps5 AMD 4700s not so much from their own words ^ ) cpu here is SHOWN , even with the memory not being shared here like in consoles.. the XSX cpu here really shines... good job DF for saying both ps5 and XSX do good, but you were little dissapointed by PS5 cpu DUHH. they even need less cooling on top ( less power/cores)
memory cant be compared between pc and consoles since they have a huge advantage in memory management
@@xtr.7662then why does performance line up exactly with how consoles perform?
@@slavche thats because that motherboard has only PCIe 2.0 x4 for GPU.
@@TheAllhailben7 performance doesnt have to do with memory alone the consoles only have 16gb of shared vram while to match console settings in games nowadays you need at least a 10gb card plus 16gb of ram
Do it with Starfield.... When it release. Please please
Bingo! Exactly what I was thinking. I'd like to get to the bottom of this 30fps lock on Series X.
Its always a good day when a new DF video drops :)
DF actually made me smarter on gaming PC's and gaming in general I'm able to hold A tech conversation now and know what I'm talking about lol. Their videos are the highest quality and they explain everything.
@@gabrieljohnson1854I’m still a PC pleb, but I’m slowly gaining knowledge from all of these DF videos. Even a gimp like me can learn.
the power limits is probably what makes de CPU underperform, consoles like PS5 and XsX usually take 220w during heavy gameplay from the wall, while PCs that's just the GPU alone and some intel CPUs can even go beyond that
It's very interesting seeing how large the performance differences can be just due to cache and memory configuration. I had no idea the console CPU could fall so far behind in some games.
Yeah. VRAM trades low latency to support massive file transfers for a GPU to handle, but the cpu still has to move that stuff into the GPU memory for it. The CPU chokes on that lower latency because x86 CPUs are designed for fast transfers.
Remember that consoles get a specific version with extreme finetuning, he's just running a PC version on kit based on XBOX
@@codethis2875 "Console optimizations" are mostly just a myth in my experience. You can't just optimize your way past a cache and memory latency bottleneck without dramatically changing the code being run. There's a reason the performance results he's seeing are pretty much in line with how these games run on the consoles and this also perfectly explains why Starfield's minimum system requirements call for a CPU that's seemingly significantly slower than this chip.
@@TheAllhailben7Yeah, as we’ve seen with mobile platforms, you can make up for high latency RAM (such as LPDDR5) with lots of cache, but in the case of the consoles, the GPU takes up a lion’s share of die space, so including the cache isn’t super practical.
ive been with a sour mouth from the jaguar chips from last gen and i was happy to know that this gen ,consoles would get "grown man" cpus.Even with power and thermals concerns im glad to know that ,at least, the performance is close with popular desktop counterpart.
I would like you to test RPCS3 to see if the PS5 can run or how well it can PS3 games
this was great.. but I was expecting to see side by side comparisons with an actual Series X. Why not? I understand comparing with other computer-based cpu's.. but since it was supposed to be the actual cpu in the series x.. would have been great to see to be thorough.
I know what you mean, best you can do is open up a video where they test the same games on Xbox, imho performance seems simillar
@@antont4974 they've compared consoles side by side... like ps5 vs series x in past videos.. they could have gotten numbers for series x. hopefully they'll do a followup video
Weird isn’t it. He gives us the appetizer but we are denied the main course.
Likely because many games run fairly stable on the consoles at this point, games like Rainbow Six Siege with truly unlocked FPS options are a rarity on consoles and drops from FPS targets are fairly uncommon on most polished titles anymore.
they've been asked not to make those comparisons a while back.
These are my favourite sort of DF videos, absolutely fascintating stuff, thanks Rich!
love to see a side by side comparison with the PS5 CPU. They should be neck on neck but there should be scenarios where one is stronger than the other
That kind of kit with integrated GPU and unified memory could be the perfect solution for Valve and their effort to consolize the gaming PC with their OS, especially with their OS where they can do similar magic than with proton so the memory can be spefcially addressed
Cool. Quite nice that they also use the stock AM4 cooler mount (and cooler) on this one.
If this didn't have chopped up vector units, the massive bandwith would probably have some good uses.
Richard, at 15:21 you forgot to mention I/O handling. On Xbox there's a dedicated I/O unit for decompression & I/O handling. On 4800S the I/O is handled by the CPU adding additional overhead.
Do you have a source for that? As far as i can tell, it just has a normal south bridge. The PS5 on the other hand has a dedicated SSD controller that can do decompression. It was marketed by sony itself.
@@istealpopularnamesforlikes3340 Thanks!
@@nikkopt You can read more Xbox' dedicated I/O unit on the official Xbox News article about the Velocity Engine or the hotchips deep dive from 2020. Moreover every Sony & Microsoft console since 6th gen has dedicated I/O processors. This includes PS2, PS3, PS4, PS5 & every Xbox. I'm not sure about Nintendo consoles but it wouldn't surprise me if it has I/O processors too.
@@xenuCS The 9th generation is the only one where the devs claim any kind of decompression acceleration. The other are just south bridges. Sure it can be called a processor since it processes data, but it offers no acceleration or offloading from the cpu.
@@nikkopt It might be the first time you heard of I/O processors but it's far from being the first generation with dedicated I/O.
PS2's I/P processor ran at 33-36Mhz with 2-4MB RAM on a 32-bit bus. Back then this was enough to offload all IO tasks from the CPU.
"I had to count the frames from a camera feed"
lmao the quality of this channel is just unparalleled
Would be interesting to make this 4800s into a full series x comparable pc. Including a comparable gpu and nvme ssd like SX uses and test it with Sony PC games. R&C, Spider-man, TLoU...
You can just remove the series X ssd yeah
A PC that is comparable to a PS5/Series X.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 / Intel Core i7-11700.
AMD RX 6700 / AMD RX 6800 / Nvidia RTX 2070 Super / RTX 3060 ti / RTX 4060
16 GB of DDR4 @ 3200 MHz+.
NVME SSD.
PS5 GPU:
2304 Cores.
144 TMUS.
64 ROPS.
256 Bit Bus Width.
16 GB of GDDR6 that is shared between the CPU and GPU. So effectively 8-10 GB depending on what you are doing with your game; With an additional 512 MB DDR4 to run the OS and all related OS tasks.
Hybrid RDNA 1+2
Xbox Series X GPU:
3328 Cores.
208 TMUS.
64 ROPS.
320 Bit Bus Width.
Dedicated 10 GB of GDDR6. With an additional 6 GB GDDR6/192 Bit Bus Width Allocated specifically to the CPU, for a total of 16 GB.
Hybrid RDNA 1+2
AMD Radeon RX 6700:
2304 Cores. ( Matching PS5 )
144 TMUS. ( Matching PS5 )
64 ROPS. ( Matching PS5 and Xbox Series )
160 Bit Bus Width. ( Does not match PS5 )
10 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds/matches what is actually available to the PS5 and Xbox Series X GPUs in real world scenarios. )
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT:
2560 Cores. ( Exceeds PS5 / Does not match Xbox Series )
160 TMUS. ( Exceeds P55 / Does not match Xbox Series )
64 ROPS. ( Matches PS5 / Matches Xbox Series )
192 Bit Bus Width. ( Does not match PS5 or Xbox Series )
12 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds what is actually available to the PS5 and Xbox Series X GPUs in real world scenarios. )
AMD Radeon RX 6800:
3840 Cores. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 )
240 TMUS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 )
96 ROPS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 )
256 Bit Bus Width. ( Does not match Xbox Series X, matches PS5 )
16 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds what is actually available to the Xbox Series X and PS5 GPUs in real world scenarios. )
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX:
6144 Cores. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 )
384 TMUS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 )
192 ROPS. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 )
384 Bit Bus Width. ( Exceeds PS5 and matches Xbox Series GPU Spec )
24 GB GDDR6. ( Exceeds Xbox Series X and PS5 )
There, I answered it for you.
@@theexile4694dude your comparison sucks... An 11th gen i7 is equivalent to a r5 3600?
I'd be interested to see how this CPU performs against Zen 1 CPUs like the 2400G, 1600 and 1700.
It's roughly equivalent to a 2700X
The Ryzen cores on both Xbox Series and PS5 are mammoth processors compared to last generation Jaguar cores. Jaguar cores were created for low powered laptops with no gaming efficiencies in mind. Nevertheless, both generation GPU's are low power processors that are missing many of the large cache features available in desktop CPUs. Regardless of this test, this generation consoles have not been remotely utilized to their potential when you consider what last generation Jaguar core consoles could actually run.
Good to know a 7800X3D is absolutely sure to double the consoles' CPU performances, accounting for the console optimizations. I can't wait to buy one :D
Probably way more considering the 7600 is a six core CPU used Vs 8 cores of 7800X3D.
Wish they used 8 core CPUs to compare :/.
7800x3d performance is so insane it probably outperforms whatever is going to be in the PS6/Next Box, lmao.
7800x3d blind fanboys here 😂
@@Name-tn3mdwell the i9 9900x is still better than 5600x
I suspect a lot more performance than double, considering the 7600 none x3d is delivering such high performance, a 7800x3d would be a monster in comparison to what consoles can offer, at least doubling in performance, but I suspect it will be closer to double and half or even 3 times the performance.
Phenomenal video Rich. Really glad we got to confirm the CPU perf of these new consoles!!
well this was of XSX it says it on the Title of video... Did you watch the video? he exclaims mostly + and - of "XSX" cpu..
In first few seconds, he mentions this test was done before with PS5... AMD 4700s not this AMD 4800s and it was "dissapointing"
So.. no... this is not the performance of the new consoles SORRY i know its not so far, 25-45% maybe.. but THIS is XSX cpu.
@@slavche Doesn't change the fact that consoles are outdated crap anyway. They have been for a very long time compared to what's possible on a good PC (let alone all the other advantage a PC has. Consoles really only exist for small children and poor losers who can't afford a PC)
You can't confirm the CPU console performance. All those tests are made without a dedicated I/O unit and with much slower memory. You can't compare it 1:1.
You get what you pay for. Still pretty decent for 500 bucks
Should be cheaper
@@JamieRobert_ show me a pc build for 500 that compares
@@jaredjones1846 I’m just saying it should be cheaper not saying it’s not a good deal
@@jaredjones1846 considering they raised the prices
@@jaredjones1846 3600 with a used 2070 super. there.
I think questions abot 30fps cap in Starfield are answered.
I think with Plague Tale you are seeing the one disadvantage of running software on a SOC at higher wattages. I think they had to lessen the CPU run time to give power and thermel headroom for the GPU rendering not to starve. I did write this before you mentioned the shared bandwidth, which is also another good point.
Thank you Mr. & Mrs. Judd, and Fiddler_2K for your contributions! You guys rock!
Brilliant idea to do this Rich.
I've been thoroughly enjoying my SeriesX over the last couple of years.
And I'm enjoying my PS5, cheers🥂
@@Zeegoku1007 hell yea, brotha
@@JamieRobert_enjoying your outdated comment?
I enjoy both my Series X and PS5
@@wodensthrone5215soon to be me too
the biggest problem is the fact that the pcie lanes are thinked to be on the console, because the majority of the bus is used for the inside gpu, but having it disabilitated have the cpu share a narrow pcie bandwith that should be used only for memory and ssd to have the best performance to have it shared to a graphics card, a wifi card and more
Quite suprising, I suspected series x CPU is on par with ryzen 3600 but seeing tht procesor beating console part by 60% is quite a suprise. No wonder most console games are 30 fps locked again.
32mb cache for 6 cores on 3600 is the main reason, but for games developed for consoles in the future 3600 might be slower. I still can't run Last of Us and Ratchet and clank at stable 60 fps on 3600x.
I think you also have to factor in all the parts of the Series that are not on this board, like the audio block, the decompression block, etc, that really save a lot of CPU cycles for the Series S. As far as I can tell, this CPU was doing all those CPU intensive aspects, that the CPU in the Series S/X would not have to do.
I would love to see comparisons with steam deck, ROG Ally, the One S etc. See how far the Gen on Gen leap was. See how far ahead it compares to handhelds etc.
I suspect by the time the Steam Deck 2 is released, it will be easy for Valve to offer at least double the performance over the Deck 1, and probally a lot more on the cpu side because the ROG Ally already blows away the Deck on cpu performance being as it's 8 cores and newer gen, whereas on the gpu side, it's a more modest improvement of around 30-50% over the Deck.
Assuming Valve release a Deck 2 by 2025, cpu performance could be around 3 times faster over the Deck 1, gpu performance will be at least double, probably double and half, memory and SSD's are dropping a lot lately, that it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up with 32GB of DDR5 memory and a much bigger and faster SSD drive.
If Valve can keep the price down, and say release it around the time Nintendo releases a Switch 2, it could start to slowly eat into their market share, especially because by the time the Deck is released, the software and hardware will be a lot more mature, and unlike the Deck 1, the Deck 2 won't have to prove its self as a new concept, basically, more are likely to buy a Deck 2 because it's a lot more mature and it's proven its self with the Deck 1, which is how reputation and growth always happens and why I've always said that the Deck 1 will never be a threat to Nintendo, but the Deck 2, 3 or 4 could be.
Looking at these numbers, it slowly seems like we are hitting the point where consoles no longer really benefit from more specific optimizations compared to maybe prior generations.
At least on the CPU side. In that sense, consoles really are becoming locked down pc's with fixed hardware.
Makes you wonder, how Valve would be able to do if they themselves released a steam box which would be closer to current gen consoles, just with a bit of a half-generation leap. Next to the steam deck.
It is amazing what these components can do with a low level access software, I had the same impression after discovering the first Xbox had a Celeron processor. Would like to see the same treatment for PC games, we already have Vulkan.
The first ever Xbox had a pentium 3 cpu
The PS5 zen2 cores aren't 100% the same as the vanilla ones. Not only they have less cache but the floating point units are also cut down to make space in the die. It's possible there are changes in the Xbox cores as well. Also, i can't seem to find a picture of the backside of the board to see if it has RAM chips there. It if doesn't, it has a narrower bus width compared to the Xbox. 4 modules probably puts it at 192bit, while 6 modules on the Xbox run at 320bit (the other 4 at 192bit)
Also the PS5 CPU may habe unfie cache like zen 3.
FP is pretty useless for gaming, int perf is what really matters, Sony are not dumb. you can clearly see a strong correlation between INT perf and gaming
most fp workloads would be diverted to the GPU anyways, GPU's are FP monsters
@@codethis2875 even a fast google search would prove you're just spitting nonsense. Quoting one website "Floating point numbers permeate almost every area of game programming. They are used to represent everything from position, velocity, and acceleration, to fuzzy AI variables, texture coordinates, and colors." . If there are useless, why would every gaming console since the N64 included a FPU? Also, not everything can be offloaded to the GPU. If it cannot be parallelized or there is overhead by having to transfer data between the CPU and GPU constantly, it will be done on the CPU. The first quake video game required a FPU and won't run on CPU's without one.
Great video Rich!
It's mind blowing how much better pc hardware is compared to consoles and that games still barely manage to get a similar performance on PC. Not sure if we have a single PC exclusive title which can really showcase these differences.
Throwing in the 5600X3D could have been interesting to get some extra perspective gen on gen and also on how much extra performance we can expect from the extra cache.
The performance difference isn't mind blowing. The amount that people care considering like you say the lack of games is mind-blowing.
Really interesting video. It helped me to understand how the consoles are still very different to a PC setup, despite consoles becoming more PC-like in recent generations. How similar are the X and S CPUs? I understand they are both Zen2 chips but would it be possible to also look at this 4800S as a Series S CPU to help explain some of the differences and compromises between S and X?
A console refresh with zen 3 cpu could give a great boost to this console gen. I imagine that’s where they’ll make most of their money. Pair that with a modest gpu upgrade to memory bandwidth, clockspeed, maybe an unlocked compute unit from better yields. Add in fsr 2.2 support and that is a compelling upgrade without breaking the bank.
It also sets the consoles further ahead of current handhelds which are rapidly evolving and competing for gamer dollars.
zen 3 is only a very small improvement
Can you test Gotham Knights at 1080p on the 4800s? There are ideas that assume resolution reduction will improve the fps.
My friend and I been gaming on the 3800x for a few years now and we been happy with the performance for the most part, it's a bit better than this cpu. I also have a 3900x pc that's also been a good cpu for my needs.
I have a 10700k i thought about upgrading but like you said it works for my needs so I just leave it be
I gamed on 3800X for several years, great CPU, especially when EDC bugged and PBO tuned. Upgraded to 5800X3D last month, the performance is insane.
3900X is now a very viable options for people that need a lot of cores for some reason. You can buy it brand new for less than $200.
@@dylanzachary683 i have the same cpu its fine bro
@@dylanzachary683 looking at graphs and benchmarks recently, I'd say it's not a bad idea for both of us to upgrade. With Permission if funds are available of course. .
Cool video. Would be interesting to see it vs Zen +, like a 2700x etc.
I'd like to see some Sony games, especially ones like Ratchet and Clank and Spiderman Remastered since they do have issues with decompression and such.
More with this please! Now to add a console relative gpu and compare.
Its not really that interesting if ur not gonna include the performance of series X in these tests.
At this point is there any good reason why we can't just use an Xbox series X as an actual PC with windows installed?
Latency from the RAM for non gaming tasks?
Lack of drivers, particularly for the iGPU, and various security measures on the XSX that would prevent anyone from doing such a thing. I always thought that it would be interesting if AMD put an equivalent-to-Series X SOC+motherboard+RAM on the market supported by proper drivers etc. for enthusiasts, but unlikely to happen because they would need to charge too much for it in order to turn a profit.
Because Microsoft wants you buying games from them not steam
After all the "New Beta patch could give hopes for a 60fps mode for Starfield on Xbox Series X" articles online:
Now the patch is final and out on PC and console, It would be very interesting to test Starfield on this exact 4800S part Rich.
An Investigation to uncover if a 60FPS (or at least a 40FPS patch) could become a reality for Xbox Series X would be a very interesting episode that a lot of DF subscribers would be exited for ✌
Interesting video,
The CPU of the PS5 and Series X seems more like a Ryzen 4800U mobile with slightly lower clock speeds. It would be intriguing to conduct tests with this Chinese board that has the Series X APU and a CPU like the 4800U or 4600H, as well as the Ryzen Zen+ desktop series like 2600X, 2700X.
a 5700xt on this would be interesting
A 6700 (non XT) is closer to the GPU in the console though. Same RDNA2 and same number of cores. You just need to do a slight underclock and it’s basically the same GPU.
@@wertywerrtyson5529 A 6700 (non XT) is closer to the GPU in the PS5***
Not the Xbox
@@mitsuhh You are correct I read the numbers wrong. Xbox Series X seems to be somewhere between 6700XT and 6800 in cores.
The GPU equivalent of the XSX is a slightly reduced variant of the Radeon 6800, if memory serves.
6700XT
it lacks infinity cache, high clock speeds, and has less compute units, its significantly slower than the 6800
@@crazyahhkmed6700 10gb
A 6700 non xt
@@JaseHDXits the closest desktop counter part, probably like a 3070ti as that is between a 6700xt and 6800, in raster
Great video. Just a couple years ago there was talk of the consoles surpassing standard PC hardware. Now an entry 7600 blows the whole console generation out of the water!
Ehh, the PS5 was middle of the pack on release and Nvidia released the 3080 before the PS5 did. Current PS5 Pro speculation puts it at the level of maybe the 3080 in more optimistic rumors.
@@TheAllhailben7 The 3080 cost almost 2x as much as the entire PS5..
@@mitsuhh console comparable gpus always cost more than the console. See X1800xl in 05, Geforce 2 in 2000, etc. Only post PS3 did console makers have the audacity to release them for 500+. Gamecube came out for 200. Saturn is the sole exception over 300.
@@JackInABeanstalk98 PS4 was comparable to 7870 / r9 270 which cost $200
@@JackInABeanstalk98 so no, not always
this mainboard was selled here in europe in prebuild pcs for low spec gaming for around 500 € like 2 years ago ^^
Fantastic video, this is exactly the content I adore the most and look forward to. 10/10!
"SO YOU TESTED ONLY THE CPU PART OF A CPGPU? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA useless video!!!!"
@@sucaNaitoraven951 The GPU part of the die is disabled. You can't test the GPU.
Would love to see this paired with a 6700XT using games with 120hz modes as well to compare to a XSX.
Could we actually use this bench for Starfield once the PC version comes out? XD Assuming there are no major outstanding stability problems with the PC version on release at least.
I think this goes to show you how developers have a bit of legroom to work with for console next gen games going forward as the gen matures.
give it an rx6700 an compare it against a series X on plague tale requiem and other unlocked frame rate games. let's see how representative of the console's performance this really is
To be fair Plague Tale was not made to take advantage of all console hardware and unified memory.
I would had liked to see it paired with a Series X RDNA2 equivalent GPU.
Also, I always knew that the lack of Zen 3 on consoles would make them obsolete very fast.
I don't think you know what obsolete means.
zen 2 is enough, consoles are baseline hardware and are highly optimized
30 FPS is common for console games
I agree a more console equivalent gpu would be interesting
I hope future consoles include larger caches, not necessarily stacked dies, but just more cache. Maybe 3D V-Cache will be cheaper over time if the cache is made on older nodes. Stick to 8-core, add v-cache, everything else into GPU (and hardware accelerated AI, RT, etc). I don't want to see any "Pro" consoles this gen since I don't think AMD has any tech worth adding to a console at an affordable cost at the moment.
So this is the reason starfield at 30fps
Great video, super cool hardware to see! Would be interesting to see it paired with a AMD 6700 (non xt) to see almost as close as we can the pure performance/power the Series X has
Some notes: PCIE bandwidth is pretty limited at 4X vs what would have to be 16X on the actual console, and the Series X RAM is split between 10GB of faster memory, and 6GB of slower memory. I'm sure it's just used as one big pool with no separation for gaming performance.
The 10gb is for the GPU. 6gb is for the cpu
Doesn't the 7600 performance here bolster the argument for a PS5 Pro using Zen 4 or maybe even Zen 4.5 architecture?
Id like to see you benchmark Starfield using the 4800S and see if you can hit 60FPS on PC using a Series X equivalent GPU.
We all know it wont be identical to console as the optimisation is superior but it would give us a rough idea.
You can already see Flight Simulator 2020 running there, being locked to 30 fps with an rtx 3060 like its console counterpart.
Series X having dedicated decompression blocks for the I/O is the superior optimisation.
@@aboriginalmang Isn't Flight Simulator notorious for only being 1 CPU core dependent? I thought that game did not spread the load very well, perhaps it has been updated to take better use of more cores. I would bet Starfield is using as many cores as it can, it seems very CPU dependent.
Interesting video and piece of Tech Seems like AMD found a way to monetize a the discarded hardware but its more like gimmick stuff rather than anyone looking to do decent gaming would buy.
Most of these will end up in internet cafes and schools
Only 482 views.? Surely that cant be right...
@Digital Foundry
I wonder, is it possible for DF to get an idea about the difference between approaches of optimisation for PC and consoles? And, more importantly, to share it with us?
Such knowledge from game developers or game engine engineers could be very interesting for folks who are familiar with software engineering.
Xbox Series X is extremely underrated in the gaming world I just have the S and after Xbox latest update everything looks and feels better like 10X better I can only imagine how it looks on the X. I'm building A gaming PC next year and I'm comparing gaming PC's to my Series S and I'm shocked at how the S holds up with PC's with games looking better on my S! I know its better to have PC but for me to outperform my S and X I have to spend thousands.
Least obvious Xbox salesman
I got a Series S for $200 which is what it's worth. Series X was overpriced when PS5 can get it done at $400 retail.
He isn't exaggerating, when you consider the fact that you have to spend at least $1k more than the cost of a Series X, to play games at similar or marginally better fidelity.
Yes, the PC components technically trounce the Series X, but when the games run like shit on the PC, who cares?
@@TheUballeno you don't. 6700xt and r5 3600 is all you need to match fidelity
@@TheUballeare you serious?! Do you really how compressed and upscaled everything is on a Series X?!! I bet your really think WZ2 is running full on 4k @ 120 fps too 🤣🤣🤣
Ive had my series x for a year & a half a d nothing has impressed me about it other than it boots quick & the menus run well.
So this means that if you want to build a console killer equivalent you need a Ryzen 5 3600 or equivalent CPU?
Yeah 600-700€ PC could beat easily a Console
Yes
@@luiscanales696don't tell people that they believe it takes $2000 to $3000 to beat them I have 2 PCs I've built myself for $1000 and $1500 but you can build a great PC for $700-$800 easy
@spiral7399 Nice lies.
@spiral7399 More lies. PS4 was never slower than the 750 Ti on paper.
Cold War runs 120fps on Xbox Series X / PlayStation 5 which is significantly higher than what can be achieved using the same Cpu on Pc and that’s simply because of Console optimization where the desktop 4700s / 4800s is never gonna gonna be able to perform as good as the Consoles even if it’s the same exact chip
Agreed, the test was interesting in the sense of what can these CPUs do in a "PC", but there is so much more to these consoles, that alleviate CPU overhead, that it is pointless to compare what a Series X can do, to this kit. They are really two different things.
Always a pleasant experience watching and listening to You.
Great video. Very enjoyable.
I think there’s not enough said about trusting consumers generally.
XSX is such good value but especially if devs don’t remove edgy or borderline performance options.
Consoles aren’t just for idiots, they’re also for gamers on a budget.
Especially in a PVE only game, let me decide if I hate the frame pacing when frame rate it unlocked.
Maybe in Starfield during space battles I might get 40fps.
Or maybe I’d be happy to play in 720p or maybe I’m insensitive to stutter or able to ignore it.
But ignoring Starfield - games that can crack the VRR threshold, give me sliders or curate a 3rd option called “VRR Mode” because some of us stumped up for fancy TVs and you reviewers basically sending the message to devs “Make it a perfect 60hz or drop rez or lock it at 30, nothing else” is frustrating to me esp when it works ie. you got the resolution reduced in Valhalla. That was all you. While I’m sitting here with my new telly going “Guys!” VRR guys. There’s VRR on consoles now.
At 720p, the game would be very CPU reliant, and it's not good for a CPU bottlenecked system like the Xbox. The small framerate gain wouldn't be worth it for most people. If its like cyberpunk, then its probably running on 800p upscaled on xbox series S, and you could expect that kind of performance if youre running it at 720p on the series X, it wouldnt be much better.
It's funny the Xbox series S was such an amazing value but the hardware is aging so badly devs are complaining about having to optimize for it. If you look up the specs it's BAD and probably affects a lot of dev time for XSX. A 60fps cap option should be easy to enable but a game like starfield i imagine would be heavily CPU bound so they don't want the PR of having choppy framerates. Also VRR can go below 30 now with LFR which effectively displays the frames twice to still fit into VRR ( consoles need to be updated to support this).
Microsoft: We don't do a mid gen refresh. No Pro model.
Digital Foundry: Fine. I'll do it myself.
Really sucks that there still arent any models with the GPU intact and AMD driver support for this. Could make a kick ass SBC.
This is cool love rich's informative vids
Now we know why PS5 consistently performs better 😂
Why? The CPU in the series X is actually marginally better/faster.
@@davidandrew6855 Exactly, but the Ram and SSD are both slower. AMD CPUs crave that IO throughput. Microsoft went cheap.
@@Mickice No, AMD CPUs enjoy faster/lower latency RAM, in this instance, the memory for both PS5 and Series X is the same. 14gbps, only Microsoft split theirs into 2 "chunks" one with 560GBs bandwidth the other with 336GBs bandwidth.
This won't affect the CPU performance between the two at all.
Yes it will, that's why PS5 performs better.
@@Mickice No it won't, argue all you want, you are wrong.
Overall still not a terrible deal to buy a Series X versus a gaming PC especially since most of the time PC ports of console games runs terrible for months before it gets patched multiple times. Thanks Rich, didn’t know this product even existed. Amazing how much Zen 3 improved over everything that came before it.
There's also the massive price advantage of the series x compared to an equivalent gaming pc. Coupled with game pass, and it's a no brainer.
Yes and no. If your really casual and prefer the convince, then sure Xbox is hard to beat. If you want unrestricted access to emulators, multiple store fronts, upgradability, PC is still where it's at. Also, everything else you can do with a proper open ecosystem.
That's some cope right there. 700 bucks (100 for the cost of online) gets you a pretty decent PC these days. Spent a few hundred more and it will beat an X significantly
When I was considering the costs for the series x be it the services and extra addons like storage, in a couple years id spend the same amount I payed for My gaming PC which has a R5 5600x, consoles use upscaling anyways so getting a gpu that can do the same performance isnt that expensive. Getting a gaming PC just makes more sense imo. Better bang for the buck would be to get a One X for cheap cause 90% of the games youd play on the series are there too.
If you just want to plug it in and play games Xbox is hard to beat. But with a PC the sky is the limit with what you can do.
The whole advantage of the APU is the higher-than-typical number of GPU cores and shared memory. Would be interested in seeing the Series X running Windows games...but just having the CPU part of it doesn't really do anything for me.
The Sega Master System CPU would absolutely destroy all current and future graphics cards. They would be too much of a bottleneck for the SMS CPU, the world would implode causing global warming levels never before seen by mankind and socko.
Maybe the closest RDNA 2.0 GPU to match both PS5 and series X would be the RX 6700 (10 gb).
Ps5 is weaker
@@silverwerewolf975 It's literally not. PS5's GPU is equal or better than the RX 6700 in literally every single measurable way
@@silverwerewolf975and still that PS5 console she has defended herself against the XSX and STILL is beating that Xbox consolés on most of multiplatform games , we are all witness of that
@@silverwerewolf975 in real world tests their performance is very similar. They also have a lot of similarities in terms of hardware specs.
X is like rx 6800 but power limited
I hope the PS5 Pro upgrades to Zen4 and more cache.
It would be great if they do that.
They dont need to upgrade the CPU and they wont.
Consoles are always trying to sell Resolution vs Framerate.
They didnt upgrade the Jaguar CPU back then even if it was the real bottleneck.
Their CPU will be overclocked as fck and they will put a GPU with double the Tflops and sell it as a proper 4k/120 or 8k/60 and thats it 😂
nah they could just make a zen 3 with v cache ps5 and xbox and save a tone of money
They we're saying than PS5 PRO is gonna use combinations between RDNA 3 and RDNA 4 features, from that came out the RDNA 3.5 name from what all are hearing from the new PS5 than sony is gonna launch in 2024 according to no oficcial sources and the youtube chanel red gaming tech as well , and this zen 4 than PS5 PRO was going to use it was going to be ZEN 4C and NOT the tradicional ZEN 4, Microsoft not Say a Word about a new upgraded Xbox because they we're no demand for one with he s people according to them
@@scoty3434 Well everyone was saying that Ps4 pro and One X would use newer gen CPU and they didnt.
@@Joaaaaaaaaaaa PS4 pro launched before Zen, Xbox One X was competing with PS4 Pro so opted out of Ryzen.
However, now there's really no reason not to improve the cpu performance with a mid gen refresh. It would help hold those higher frame rates so they can patch quality/ray tracing modes to run at 60/120 fps as well.
Last little tidbit as well, while normal graphics performance gains wouldn't really justify a mid gen console refresh. It won't matter, because the ray tracing performance gains would. Ray tracing which is not only computationally heavy on the GPU but also the CPU.
Interesting.... Waiting to hear, "well the results are fascinating"
I'm hoping we get a "staggering" in there somewhere.
Great benchmarks. Can you also include 5600 or 5600x to the mix in next benchmark?
whats kinda crazy is the series x cpu seemingly gets whipped by even the latest handhelds today at ridiculously low wattage. kinda goes to show that handhelds have been more than OP when it comes to the cpu and its the gpu thats always been lacking for the longest time... kind of begs the question why the cpu element keeps getting upgraded in handhelds rather than pushing more of the silicone towards more CU's. Perhaps its an indication that the cpu may once again be the set back for consoles over the next few years, doubt it though with the focus clearly being on higher res lower framerate.
There’s two big reasons why so many handhelds have been targeting stronger and stronger CPUs.
1: Strong CPUs consume far less power than GPUs do.
2: Prior to the Steam Deck, high-end handhelds were best suited for emulation, which is much more CPU-reliant than GPU-reliant. RPCS3 especially.
because they use laptop apus which have a focus on cpu rather than gpu thats why the steam deck with its custom console like apu had a better gpu than all handhelds when it came out but a significantly weaker cpu
CPU is pretty Slow for Pc Standards
No one has ever claimed otherwise…
Just imagine the ps5 wich is weaker CPU/GPU
@@JulioHernandez-nn8oz Is the same only PS5 has less cpu clockspeed Maybe 300 mhz. but that doesn't make a significant difference in Gaming Performance. Gpu clock speed does
anyway cpu multicore performance. both trash compared to intel or zen3 to be honest.
@@firip255 hahaha but more the ps5
@@JulioHernandez-nn8oz ps5 has sub system I/O much of the streaming data handled there, so cpu requirement to stream data a little bit less compared to pc and xboxsx
Even if mid-gen refresh console(s) use Zen4c the performance jump will be huge. A modest clock increase to 4.2ghz could provide an extra ~50% perf boost. That's being conservative too.
I know MS has said they have no plans for a refresh. But, if Sony makes a PS5 Pro I can't see MS not responding. I would rather see both companies use the absolute latest Zen5/RDNA 4
combo even if it means waiting an extra year or so. In the meantime I hope that FSR 3 frame-gen will work on RDNA 2 and breathe extra life into PS5 and Xbox Series.
I thought this was a fun video showcasing raw cpu performance and its evolution for games and the comments are all about console war bullshit smh
So people are surprised that game consoles which cost about the price of a entry level laptop, are not that powerful?
Yeah but this days a 600€ PC could be better performance than a console
@@luiscanales696
I believe these consoles are about 350-400 euro.... Stands to reason that a machine that's considerable more expensive performs better.
@@AdamAdamHDL no in EU PS5 and Series X are 550€
@@luiscanales696
Dam that's expensive.
@@AdamAdamHDL yeah ik
It's amazing how different things can be when there is a dedicated CPU and GPU and everything isn't sharing bandwidth and memory. I know there are certainly cost concerns, but I feel like consoles could be so much better for longer if they stopped using integrated everything.
Wouldn't change much if they used separate CPU and GPU. They'd be more expensive to produce, would sell for more and wouldn't be that much faster at all considering cost and power constraints
this is such awesome work Rich...very, very, nice...and it gives some interesting insight on why the developers/Microsoft are making some decisions around framerates, settings, etc with the Series platform (with a couple exceptions of course).
Fun fact: My xbox series S in the front room has the new UI update, my Series X in my room doesn't.
Outside of market share what is the reason for games playing better on PS5? With XSX being FULL RDNA 2 and PS5 being a Heavily Neutered RDNA 2.. No LFC VRS MESH SHADERS SAMPLER FEEDBACK AND MOST OF ALL NO FREESYNC.. What is going on? Outside of the PS5 being TRUE M.2 with TRUE PCIe gen4 speeds(5.5 GB/s) over Xbox CFExpress More PCIe Gen3 speeds(2.4 GB/s) there is nothing special about the PS5.. HOW does Mark Cut Corners Cerny make Weaker Neutered consoles but manage to perform better.. In the WORDS of the LATE GREAT Mr. Spock: "This is Highly illogical"
Sony is paying the devs for equal performance.
@@Nemesis2446 ir something than mark cerny DID with the PS5 hardware than we don't know and XSX shows everything back on 2020 with the BC pack , the Xbox velocity arquitecture and the directx12 and PS5 doesn t , and the strange stuff is than we don't know what cerny DID with the PS5 arquitecture yet , the oddle kraken decompression and the SSD M2 gen internal expansión bay is something but other stuff? That s a mistery , don't surprise than developers are saying since 3 years ago than the Playstation 5 have the best hardware arquitecture when is all about consolés surpassing the XSX hardware arquitecture, Sony is hiding something from THIS and we don't know that yet
Devs are paying much more attention to ,,market leader" leaving XSX much less time. Plus it have better hardware so they use that as cutting corners measure with hope that it will brute force acceptable results
@@damianabregba7476 Xbox have 3 years to put it to catch up with video game developers and create games for xbox, there are no excuses for xbox after almost 3 years, playstation took 6 months ahead with its development kits for video game developers to create games for playstation, but here with xbox there are no more excuses after almost 3 years these 2 consoles are already on the market, xbox should have gotten their act together with their development kits to this day but still nothing and in a bad way it is very strange, even now They had said that the xbox series consoles would have bottlenecks to create games on it, especially in XSX and XSS, something that with PS5 video game developers say the opposite of it when it comes to bottlenecks and say that PS5 does not have the same that XSX and XSS have to this day, and yet back on 2020 they are saying than PS5 has the Best hardware arquitecture on consoles surpassing the XSX hardware arquitecture when is all about for game developers and for create Games , THERE ARE NO EXCUSES WITH XBOX NOW AFTER A TIME IN THE PAST
@@damianabregba7476 PS5 does have some better aspects. Again the True M.2 SSD with PCIe gen4 is absolutely great it is on the same level as high-end PCs.. It's true brilliance is the right way to do a storage Solution.. I commend PlayStation for that.. I technically got more direct usable storage space at faster speeds on my PS5 for less money then I do my XSX that came STOCK with 1TB... as far as that goes PlayStation is a dominator. But as far as the actual architecture and the architecture feature set and the hardware itself it's completely under XSX..
I have a feeling it's because PlayStation makes absolute Banger games and because they have the market share they don't really try as hard on the hardware. Where as Xbox has to really overcompensate via the hardware because they make such lackluster games while almost completely relying on 3rd-party Developers which unfortunately cater to market share leader. Also Xbox mainly is selling OLD content as NEW content.
But realistically Games should load faster giving better Proformance on PS5 but actually play better at higher resolution higher fidelity on XSX..
Developers are not using technology like VRS MESH SHADERS SAMPLER FEEDBACK which are honestly game changers and are designed for lower-powered Hardware because PS has NONE of thouse RNDA 2 features in it..
I had thought that because the Xbox CPU is not as fast, the Xbox CPU would not perform as well as the Xbox CPU on Windows due to the difference in driver overhead and the large file access overhead of Windows, but this did not seem to be the case.
I honestly thought this was like a 6 year old video when it showed up on my feed. I was like "youtube at it again...".
Iteresting until you realize Zen 3 5600 is missing on the comaprison...c'mon it has 32 mb of chache totally accessible and a big jump over the 3600...and lower latency than 7600 Zen4