They used it in older videos

It's not the first time tho lol

@@Hybred the non XT?

@@MarceloTezza yes, like 2x in console comparison videos

they are a console channel and should stick to it their pc coverage is garbage

scrapheap challenge digital foundry revival

@@RicochetForce I am ready for Bespoke

I don't get it

​@@limpa756You're not missing anything.

5.50 for a series s? What a rip off

He's kinda bald.

​@@talysdarkthoughts552he can blind people by reflecting sunrays with his head, which is an advantage.

That's rich

They're calling him bespoke in the here and now

Found Rich’s alt account

If money is not an issue, you will be spending more than a ps5.

Still rocking with my 2060 super at 60fps

The thing is if you pay for playstation plus or whatever it's called for 3 years $240. Spend a bit of extra cash and you got a gpu much faster that what was available at the time.

My 1080ti is literally out performing 2 gens of consoles still (depending on the game)

I've been saying this for years and it's a shame it took them this long to do it long after it was replaced as lead platform. Upgrading overtime/ or having a very excessive PC at a console launch is really just common sense or should be at this point if you want to stay ahead.

The PS5 is cpu limited is my conclusion as well . When rt or just reg graphics get turned on increasing gpu load, the gap increases to 30% to 45 % meaning just like apple, programming to the metal which is possible with fixed specs and almost no overhead performance cost on consoles, leads to way better performance with the same raw HP

I didn't understand why they chose that particular excerpt from Cyberpunk, which is CPU-bound, to make the comparison.

​@@tvcultural68 because that is one of the only areas where the performance is repeatably under 60fps

​@@sumitupadhayay2270that is the CPU taking the hit though, Richard probably knows that, not sure why he included in this video, at least without giving a reminder that it could be CPU, since we don't have access to usage metrics. Could very well be STAPM capping clocks to keep within a power budget, but the console CPU is quite underwhelming.

Also shared memory bandwidth which is another limit

AMDs best advantage is the lack of hype, and therefore reasonable pricing from second hand sellers

didnt do it because money talks 💰💰💰💰

This card was around for years. They're only now reviewing it for some reason.

2 years ago you couldn't get that card for this price! Remember the horrendous state of GPUs back then?

The PS5 is cpu limited is my conclusion. When rt or just reg grpqhics get turned on increasing gpu load, the gap increases to 30% to 45 % meaning just like apple, programming to the metal which is possible with fixed specs and almost no overhead performance cost on consoles, leads to way better performance with the same raw HP

rtx 3060 and 2070 super was usually compared to ps5. 6700 is in the ball oark

Same. Its 2024 and $500 is not a lot of money anymore . Love the Ps5.

@@JokerX350 Can't do digital my best games come from a pawnshop used disc bargain bin. I just got a used disc of Jedi Survivor for $15 Canadian ($10US) That game is $45 if on sale at PS store.

​@@JokerX350Yes but a pc is used for much more than gaming.

Iceberg Tech did a similar test to this a while back too. Very good video to watch if you enjoyed this one.

​@@JokerX350meh. The cost of games for PS5 piles up considerably over time. I'm more interested in having multipurpose hardware with cheaper games.

Dude, not the PC's fault if the ps5 has a cpu bottleneck, lol. Makes sense to use a strong cpu if you're testing a gpu - to prevent the cpu (especially weaker ones) from falsifying the gpu performance. It's basic knowledge.

​@@breakingyourlegsthen this video is useless the whole point is to somewhat at least match it such as a 5600x cpu or 5700x a max ofc it's gonna run like that no console is gonna run 13900k cpu performance due to the way it is making ur comment relatively useless

@@Wyn3e I get what you're saying but I'd still disagree. This video just shows that the PS5 has a comparably weak cpu when it comes to more demanding games in 1080p so that it can't utilize the gpu's full potential as it seems. When it is not bottlenecked it basically matches the performance of the RX6700 which is indeed interesting. But I think a pc with an r7 5700x would still outperform the ps5 because its cpu architecture is based on the ryzen 3000 series if I remember correctly (possibly and most likely an underclocked ryzen 7 3700x?) Edit: Zen 2 is ryzen 3000 series, mixed it up with 2000 series before, my bad.

I see no difference. Lol

@@iPh1l1pp look at the foliage far out PS5 looks like ass the bush under the tree next to his face and the little gap in the trees where the sun lights trough right next to same tree it all looks SO bad on ps5

@@martinfletcher9699 What is see. The PS5 version of Avatar has softened leaf textures, but without a direct comparison, it's less noticeable I think. More concerning is the significant draw distance pop-in issue during flight, even on a powerful PC running on Ultra settings. Lighting I still don’t see big difference. But Ps5 is more blurry on distance. Maybe i watch the video again on my Cx

It can be youtube compression...

They just don't look the same PC looks cleaner especially foliage and texture like on the rock near Ellie, that'll be the FSR

The PS5 is CPU limited is my conclusion as well. When rt or just reg graphics get turned up increasing gpu load, the gap increases to 30% to 45 % meaning just like apple, programming to the metal which is possible with fixed specs and almost no overhead performance cost on consoles, leads to way better performance with the same raw HP.

​@@NadeemAhmed-nv2br u copying that everywere 😂 But i agree, PS5 CPU has very cut down L3 cache

Lower Power consumption . Only 200 Watts total and IS extremly quiet

Ps5 Its only 3.5ghz the pc cpu could be 4.2 or higher even stock

Limit only broken hands "dev" ! They dont now how it work (((

This GPU came out like 3 years ago

@@Radek494 I was talking about DF videos, not the hardware itself

right after I saw that and then He mumbles some bs after that I knew this old man has no clue

​@@hawksfan816 Perhaps someone else edited it and messed up. Or perhaps no-one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes

because if i'm not mistaken tlou on ps5 does not run with fsr, but pc does

They've missed stuff like this before where one platform is obviously higher resolution and they don't always notice.

Not only lighting, whole picture is better on pc and has higher resolution, grass is also looks better and more sharper. Something is wrong with these console settings. Also the pc port of last of us not good port at all and still is not fixed.

​@mvcmvvm3239 I think part of it is that even of settings appears to be like for like. The way they were coded on console may be more efficient or they take detail out in a way that isn't perceptible.

it is so is the foliage.

They always "miss" stuff like this -_-.

Same, its nice to have my card get talked about when its usually the xt thats in the conversation

If you own it you should know if it’s worth it. You need external affirmation to justify your purchase?

​@@ShaneDanger42069Grow up.

​@@ShaneDanger42069 The projecting on this comment, damn.

@@lirfrankyes lmao

Just take a loss. Jesus Christ

​@@proassassin8473the loss of having Sony making a shit port of their game? yeah, i agree

​@proassassin8473 The point of the comparison is if the version have a lot of similar level setting. If something is CLEARLY better, then it defeat the original purpose of the comparison :/.

​@@proassassin8473nah pc still better. imagine spending money on a mid ass generation of consoles.

@@brunoutechkaheeros1182 ok what PC spec should they port it to mine or yours? Problem with PC there is sooo many differences how can you expect a game to be like it is on a closed box...

I seen your video of this comparison months ago and was very well done.

Didn't think I'd see you here.

i see a man of culture, something only people know if they watch benchmarks.

6900XT ~ 3090 6800XT ~ 3080 10GB I don't think so, at least we need to compare sponsored titles on an equal footing

@@massimocsw9455 6700 is like between 3060 and 3060 ti. it's closer to the 6650xt than the 6700xt.

@@coffee7180 Benchmarking videos are weirdly relaxing tbh

yes quite the suspicion ineed.

Yeah. Everyone always gets mad when AMD sponsored ganes make Nvidia cards slightly underperformed. Yet Nvidia sponsored titles basically tank AMD cards like crazy. Remember Fallout 4, Cyberpunk and plenty more.

LUDAAA

In what context are you talking about? ZLUDA and CUDA are irrelevant for gaming. CUDA is not used for gaming or RTX, so ZLUDA won't change anything here. For rendering usages maybe it'll help, but I doubt it'll be a game changer until AMD comes out with some real improvements

@@Gravy1255but nvidia sponsored games does have nice feature when compared to amd

Consoles will get more expensive if this keeps up.

when you factor in other things like PS+ subscription, the cost of games and a very limited modding support compared to PCs it becomes not that big of a difference.

​​@@Dragonfury3000PS5 price will drop with the PS5 Pro release this year

​@@synysteraIT IS. Especially the convience and Ports are mostly grap today on pc

@@synystera I don't buy that sh!t and nobody I know does either. You buy the console and the games ( discounted, ofcourse ) and thats it, no fluff. So the difference is null and void. Accept the reality as it is, which is consoles take the piss out of PC equivelant components in price/performance..

true

I think the Rx 6700 usually draws around 160 watts and the 4060 120. Add maybe 60-80 watts for a CPU and the rest. Not too far off, the 4060 could even be more efficient.

that's kinda the point, even if they had the same gpu chip, the console would still be limited by cpu, power limits, power package delivery, form factor, etc.

In my case RX6700 take at max 125 Watts after UV during torture tests, usually smaller due to me playing with options to increase performance and locking fps to monitor refresh rate (I don't need more). With CPU I don't know how to exactly measure power load of my Ryzen 7800X3D, but according to benchmarks it takes around 90W during the tests, with real life loads being much smaller.

i9-13900K, which means this whole video is silly.

Very important part left out. The entire system as a whole is more impressive when you concider the specs and speeds they're running at as well.

Yeah, this could explain the cases in which the RX 6700 provides way more FPS, maybe because the PS5 CPU can’t keep up with the GPU

@@xDenokez This what I was thinking. TLOU being a shit port explains the massive performance disparity but the 6700 system leading what appear to be CPU-limited scenarios by over 40% suggest a CPU bottleneck on the PS5.

​@@xDenokez AMD ryzen 3700

They are stressing the GPU, the CPU is taken out of the equation​@@xDenokez

Those were the days

They can't make them anymore because it's impossible to build a console-grade PC for less than the price of a console nowadays!

@@selohcinimagine the PS5 pro coming out at 650 dollars for the whole console but with 7800XT performance which the leaked specs allude to. Can’t get a FULL 7800XT PC build with just 650 unless you’re already a PC and all you’re doing is dropping in the GPU and no other component.

@@jose131991 I think that ps5 pro will be little bit expensive and will cost 700$, but anyway there is possibility that rx 7800 xt will get price cut in nearest future

@@jose131991 Exactly right. You can't even build a PS5-grade PC for $500, so the PS5 Pro, if it comes as expected, will be fantastic.

Yup. I have a i5-13600k and rtx 3070 and I'm surprised that it barely does better than ps5 in current Gen games, and in games that have stuttering issues on pc, ps5 is A LOT better. Unoptimized games like dying light 2 though are a million times better on my pc while cyberpunk is actually comparable on my ps5. If I go with Ray tracing, I lose the image quality that ps5 has (worth it though) Problem is in any last Gen games, my PC absolutely destroys ps5. Especially backwards compatible games, even some with ps5 ports. Guess thats what happens when a game is developed for a console from the start instead of just upgraded or ported later

I just think with PS4 games running on PS5. The ps5 does very little to enhance the games. It's especially playing them the same as a PS4 pro would. Sometimes if there is an uncapped frame rate you might get some higher frame rates but this is pretty rare. But then again it's not terrible as most PS4 games run great on PS4 pro. So it's still a good experience just nothing special. Compared to pc where you can adjust the settings for the hardware.

Why? You already have one. In terms of CPU, yours is much more powerful than the PS5 Pro will ever be. The PS5 has the equivalent of a Ryzen 7 3700X at best. The PS5 Pro CPU should remain the same only clocked higher due to compatibility concerns. And your GPU is on par with the PS5 Pro as well. The PS5 Pro should have 60-64 compute units. The RX 6800 XT has 72. Which means you have a 15% to 23% stronger PS5 Pro already.

⁠@@JackJohnson-br4qrps5 pro would crush a 6800 xt tho well if it’s a 2X boost just like ps4 to pro last gen

The cost-benefit ratio of the PS5 isn't great. Seven years of paying to play online equates to the price of a mid-end GPU, and on top of that, the games are much more expensive.

Game developers do backflips to optimized for consoles . Casual gamers' like Console or low mid PCs. Casual gamers vastly outnumber high end PC gamers. The majority buy more $70 games than the minority .

If the devs wanted they could get Uncharted to run on at least the 4gb varient of the 750ti. Problem is there are so few 750ti owners that it makes no sense. With consoles old crappy hardware is what youre stuck with so the devs have to spend tons of cash to get something out of it. Not like there is any choice for console players either, if it took having the game render at 360p just to run on a console, thats what youre getting no matter what and nothing can be done about it.

@@sergeysiminyuk Yeah, I agree with that. If there are upsides with picking a console, there sure are enough downsides as well. In my case, I have always felt the need for output render resolution as an option on consoles, I have a monitor that's 1080p 144hz connected with my laptop and PS5. A lot of games on PS5 have a target output resolution of 1440p on performance mode and I wish I could make it 1080p instead and getter better performance overall.

The PS5 CPU performance is somewhere between the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 3700X so anything better should do the job. Something like the 12400f would be more than enough.

The PS5 uses an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 2 CPU clocked at ~3.5 GHz, so anything at or beyond that level would get you there. However, you can't really buy the Ryzen 3700X (or 4700G) new these days, so you'd be much better off spending your money on a newer six-core CPU such as the Ryzen 5600. You'll get better frame rates when CPU-bound, and probably for a lower price.

Yea it’s the PS5’s CPU that’s mainly holding it back.

@@selohcin ps5 is 3.8 ghz

@@benjaminphilp720 Incorrect. The PS5's CPU fluctuates up and down depending on its load, and 3.5 GHz is the highest it is allowed to go. You're thinking of the Xbox Series X, which can reach 3.8 GHz when its SMT is disabled.

The CPU is irrelevant for this specific testing since they are targeting 4k/30 or 4k/60. At that resolution and frame rate, any game on the PC will be GPU bound. They would get the same results with those PC GPUs whether they use a Zen 2 CPU or a Zen 4 CPU.

Playing CP77 at 55 fps on a $500 console is a blessing not a issue to me .

Power consumption. PS5 200 watts

your not blind TLOU is lower res foliage is tuned WAY down on ps5 aswell look further out its all pixalted as fuck compared to pc without fsr2 and with

@@martinfletcher9699 Yeah idk how DF didn't pick up on this at all, the difference is obv

​@@Link3131aguess they dident look at it enough

But you still have to buy the rest of the PC ,mobo,Power supply, wifi card, CPU ,Ram and case and put it together . The Ps5 is $500 ready to play games out of the box .

And the Games are was better optimized . PC Ports run Like garbage

@@Crashed131963he’s just saying it’s a great card……

​@Crashed131963 but he can do more than play games in the PC 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@Crashed131963 that is if the person is building a new system, instead of upgrading an existing one. also, consoles require online fees to make complete use of the system, even if a pc can be built of equivalent performance for $800, the online fees for the console will build up canceling out the point of going with it.

PS5 10,3 tflops Rtx 4060 15,11 tflops rtx 3060 12,7 tflops rx 6700 9,6 tflops

Comparing different architectures tflops is pointless ​@@danielweiss4498

I don't see wifi 7, they don't even have wifi 6e yet. And the cheapest wifi 7 mesh routers I've seen are like 900 bucks.

60fps Minimum. IT has probably Double the Performance

Cutdown RX 7700 XT, most likely.

@@danielweiss4498 double the Performance at RT yes. But it's still not good on AMD Hardware. Raster Performance will be ~50% higher.

There's not gonna be a PS5 pro, standard PS5 is still too expensive, too power hungry, and not selling enough units to justify a pro. It's clear that Sony's strategy is to sell games to PC gamers for those that want all the bells and whistles. Dream all you want but Sony spending all the money it would cost to have 2 production lines wouldn't be worth it, they want to make PS5 production as cheap as possible and splitting the production line up like that would inflate the production cost, not many people are gonna want to spend 600-700 on a mid gen upgrade when they can't tell the difference between native 4k and upscaled 1080p anyway.

Yes, cause i didn't get the meaning of cyberpunk 2077 test on market If even ryzen 5 5600x cant handle locked 60 fps there, how the hell they tested gpu side there... (on ps5) Cause its obvious zen2 cant handle 60 fps in ps5 either It was the most weird test 🧐

CPU isn’t that important. Most games are gpu bound. CPU only matters at high frames 140+

This isn't true at all especiallly in the context of comparing a PC vs a console APU

@@LEGIT_ELITEit is true, it’s been tested countless times.

@@luism8130 😆 , I opened my old short video of my Ryzen 5 600x in cyberpunk 2077 test. At 720 with 50% so now not GPU bound at all . (Its not even with RT on , and not even patch 2.0 which is even more heavy) Check it out and it will change your world about how much cpu is important in modern games 😁

Only if 720p fsr p on low settings

@@Name-tn3md well if it runs like that on the series s! I won't mind playing it like that coz that's rockstar's vision for the series s and I don't think it would be that bad, kinda like rdr2's Xbox one version

@@sumitupadhayay2270 omg it was horrible af

​​@@sumitupadhayay2270Xbox series S gpu power is probably on the lvl of newer rx5500xt... You can buy rx6600 on PC and have better performance.

@@zbigniew2628 I have a laptop....

Yeah, this could explain the cases in which the RX 6700 provides way more FPS, maybe because the PS5 CPU can’t keep up with the GPU

The PS5 is CPU limited is my conclusion. When rt or just reg graphics get turned up increasing gpu load, the gap increases to 30% to 45 % meaning just like apple, programming to the metal which is possible with fixed specs and almost no overhead performance cost on consoles, leads to way better performance with the same raw HP

That game is so optimized for the Ps5 , no big shock there .

@@Crashed131963What I've heard is that the game engine heavily utilizes async compute and they didn't implement that in the PC version. No clue if it's actually true or not but it would explain the massive performance deficit and the bafflingly low power draw on PC GPUs. The engine is clearly leaving a lot of GPU horsepower on the table.

@@nimbulan2020They use PS5’s approach how to handle streaming textures and copy and paste it to PC. So a CPU does all the hard work. Which is not how to program games for PC. Iron galaxy is just incompetent and proved it many times.

The port is no longer broken after all the patches, but it's also not providing good utilisation of hardware. It really ought to be possible to play the game and have a good experience on more constrained hardware (e.g. a handheld PC or laptop) but that's just not possible at the moment, you need a high end desktop just to power through and get a decent 1440p / 60fps experience at console equivalent settings. Hopefully the eventual The Last of Us Part II port will have the proper resources given to the dev team and they'll do a good job. As it stands though, if you have the hardware to brute force your way through its issues, the port of Part I is at least a lot cheaper than the PS5 version.

yep. As I know PS4 gpu had some features, which 270x hasn't

You mean PS5?

@@danielweiss4498 no he is referring to the last part of the video where Rich use PS4 to prove a case of how poorly it's PC equivalent GPU aged in comparison.

It's still higher specced ( on paper ) in most areas over PS4 so you've got your counter-balance there.

The arch differences are small

the 7600xt doesn't have the ability to make use of the 256 bit bus. the hold back is the gpu chip. the gpu that would have made use of it would have been the 4060ti. this card should have been a 192 bit, 12 GB card.

7700xt= rx6800

And resolution. Rendering at 720p in 2024 is just unacceptable.

"A real good CPU". 💀 The CPU is actually low-end... only the iGPU is powerful.

​@@sergeysiminyukYeah, but what can we do? This is how the developers want their games to run on these platforms. I still can't believe some games actually render at 540p on the PS5 and the XSX (even worse on XSS)...

@@accountteam9859have you actually done research on the cpu or are you just some teenager who spams emojis?

@@diddykong9366 It's low-end. Literally on par with a Ryzen 7 3700X, the Ryzen 7's low-end. And this one is even more powerful already. But since there isn't another option, this is the most close one. The iGPU on the other hand, performs very similar to an RTX 3060 and an RTX 3060Ti so I could say that's mid-end, but the CPU is pretty bad.

I respect them, but they tend to favor Nvidia. As all of them say they have never had an AMD GPU for personal use since AMD bought ATI. And that was in 2006. I find it strange that the PS5, which uses an AMD GPU, is being compared to an Nvidia GPU. And when they recently thought about replacing the 2070 Super in tests, they didn't even think about AMD. They are only considering Nvidia, specifically the RTX 3060.

Well, the Series X matched the 2060 Super (7.1 tflops) in some of Alex's videos which always shocked me as we expected 2080 Super (11.2tflops) performance from the Series X given the its 12 tflops. But this video shows that the PS5 is holding its own against the 6700 (11.3 tflop) video card from AMD and also faring well against the 2070 super (9 tflops) and the 3060 (12.7 tflops) and the 4060 (19.5) tflops from Nvidia. As Rich noted, the PS5 will only outperform these cards as time goes by as developers will clearly do a lot more with the PS5 than the old cards. If a game isn't running well or looking great, it's because of the developers not getting the most out of the PS5.

​@@techsamurai11you are a playstation apologizer

I know the 2070 Super got better performance than “next gen” consoles using DLSS. Also they were using the 2070 Super because that was a good point for the average Steam user.

@@techsamurai11 You cannot compare AMD TFLOPS with Nvidia TFLOPS!

It is but you do have to factor in the high cost of games on consoles. The hardware is being sold at cost or even less than cost because the difference is made up (many times) by charging a high price for games, subscription services etc.

Finally someone who spotted the $500 part. People playing on a $500 platform expecting to play at 60fps with RT on must live in another world .

DF Video wasn't even about matching PS5 specs though?

I call playing CP2077 at 55-60fps on a $500 machine a blessing not a issue .

Good old 2016?

i have an old Nvidia 7950gt and most ps3 era games after 2010 don't even launch and have weird stutters/graphical glitches.

@@crocodilegamer93 Yeah and I saw a video of someone trying to play some PS3 era titles that they got to run but it ran very poorly and that was on a 7800GTX the GPU that the RSX chip is based off of.

@@crocodilegamer93 gta 4 runs really bad on my 7900gs.

The 6700 is a mid range GPU from 2020, hardly anything powerful even by 2020 standards. Then there is the fact that lots of demanding games render at low resolutions on ps5, some even 720p or lower. Thats just insulting, base ps4 managed at least 900p for its demanding games. Keep in mind, optimization = money. Its money that has to be spent to squeeze blood from a rock. There are general optimizations that have to be done for any platform but platform specific optimizations are a waste of resources. This model is clearly on its way out as developmemt costs these days are stupidly high as is.

@@sergeysiminyuk Some games cost 200-300 million dollars. I'm sure they can afford optimization.

someone already tested it, it run really bad on spiderman, god of war and horizon.

200hz is basically indistinguishable from 120hz or at least 144hz. Better off going lower refresh rate and better graphics but up to you

Well, clearly that doesn’t work for every single game

@@wausjackbauer128 Not for me. Probably up to 300~ I'd still tell a difference. It really depends on the game, though. Anything with extremely quickly changing frames won't be as noticeable as something with frames where objects slide across the view. It's mainly for simracing, and you want all the hz you can get. Point being that if it's good for 200hz in most games at Low, it'll be good for 120 in most games at Medium-High.

That's crazy cheap. It's like 600 here

@@ShaneDanger42069 Yeah, I get 120-140 (depending on the area) in RDR2. It's still GPU limited and won't hit 200, so you might want a 120 monitor for that one. RE4R on the other hand is pretty much pinned to my 197 limiter. So is AC/ACC. Those were also heavily CPU limited, so a weaker GPU might still do the job; but it's real hard to find a cheaper GPU that's not dogshit.

Yeah, and at that price those usually include a bundle, too. I got mine at £360 ( no bundle ), a whopper of a deal.

The point for PC always is: - Cheaper games. - Mods. - You get to choose your settings. - Unmatched retrocompatibility. - Framerate over resolution. ...

PS fanboys always bring up the price..

@@James2t3yes because you have to buy it?? and money is not infinite, so the price of things matters?? also i could not be further from a PS fanboy. i have every platform and could not care less what corporation makes which plastic box.

@@adriannavarro9962 - Cheaper games; not if you factor in physical discs ALWAYS drop in price and pretty much always keep declining over time, whereas digitally you're waiting on sales or trying to find keys cheaper which is not always possible. -Mods; sure. not something i care about personally but i can see why that's a plus for others. -You get to choose your settings; and? i pretty much always stick things on Medium/High on PC because after that is usually diminishing returns visually. -Unmatched retro compatibility; again, sure. also not something i'm personally that fussed about with my PC but it is a nice-to-have I suppose. but not essential imo. -Framerate over resolution; I would rather a balance, because after a certain threshold with both res and framerate there is only so much difference that is noticeable/worth paying £1000 more for a machine. Plus, PC ports over the last few years have been generally shit, with constant stuttering due to poor asset loading on the engine side or shader comp stutter... so that higher FPS number doesn't really mean anything when on a console you can pretty much always get *at least* a stable 30 with minimal to no stuttering. All just my opinion of course.

What did you swap for?

It also won't need to pass data into both main memory and GPU memory.

Windows 10 and 11 can do the same with DirectStorage, a 980Pro or better should perform much better than the PS5s internal NVME.

@@faverodefavero 1) Direct storage achieves similar bandwidths, but I specifically talked about latency which allows for another level of optimization. 2) Direct storage usually uses GPU resources for decompression(PS5 compression algorithm is much better by the way).

​@@Rubik43is there a game that shows this to be a benefit? Games on PC even without DS load about as fast and Ive not seen any ps5 game punch above its weight in memory usage. By this logic PCs have access to even lower latency memory, the sys ram, which is faaaar faster than any SSD. Loading from a large pool of ram will always be faster than accessing anything over PCI-E. This is why well coded multiplats load about as fast on PC even with sata SSDs.

@@sergeysiminyuk yes, ratchet and clank, the last of us and spiderman 2, the first two run much better on PS5, here they don't need 100$ of 32GB of RAM and 16GB of VRAM. Of course there is RAM but the issue of latency and CPU/GPU resources spent on decompression remains.