Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart PS5 - The Digital Foundry Tech Review

DF like their RT,and this game seems to have an impressive amount of stuff integrated into it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xtJYpwvHjY&t=784s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xtJYpwvHjY&t=784s

This is on a GPU which is not apparently even fully RDNA2,and looks to be in-between an RX5700XT and an RX6700XT in performance(it appears to be more like an updated RX5700XT).

Makes me wonder what Sony's developers could do if Sony hadn't skimped on the GPU?
Although in theory PS5 vs Xbox X in tflops is only 10.28 vs 12 (in other words the Xbox is about 16% quicker), but Sony did have to clock their part like crazy at the last moment.
The PS5 vs XBX shader core count at 2,304 vs 3,328 would have the Xbox about 44% ahead. If Sony had taken that and clocked it high too, R&C might have been even more impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kompukare

Makes me wonder what Sony's developers could do if Sony hadn't skimped on the GPU?
Although in theory PS5 vs Xbox X in tflops is only 10.28 vs 12 (in other words the Xbox is about 16% quicker), but Sony did have to clock their part like crazy at the last moment.
The PS5 vs XBX shader core count at 2,304 vs 3,328 would have the Xbox about 44% ahead. If Sony had taken that and clocked it high too, R&C might have been even more impressive.

---

It also makes you wonder whether for 90% of gamers,it makes more sense to get a console?? By the time you get a Ryzen 7 3700X,RX6700XT/RTX3070,you could get both consoles. I can't see an RX6700XT/RTX3070 being appreciably faster than the XBox Series X GPU. All MS and Sony need to do is have better keyboard and mouse support and that might be enough to get people off the overpriced PC platform.

I've had this pre-ordered since February and honestly can't wait. Not watching the video though, don't want any spoilers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoonigan

I've had this pre-ordered since February and honestly can't wait. Not watching the video though, don't want any spoilers.

---

It looks very pretty and even the RT effects look really nicely done(considering the hardware).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

It also makes you wonder whether for 90% of gamers,it makes more sense to get a console??

---

If you enjoy the kind of games that are on console then yes, it's often better to get a console compared to a PC for solely gaming purposes. Personally I use my PC for other things, as well as playing several games that just aren't on console, but I do keep an eye on whether it's worth replacing my gamecube at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

If you enjoy the kind of games that are on console then yes, it's often better to get a console compared to a PC for solely gaming purposes. Personally I use my PC for other things, as well as playing several games that just aren't on console, but I do keep an eye on whether it's worth replacing my gamecube at some point.

---

The problem is the kind of games like consoles are not like the gamecube era. Sadly it includes literally every modern AAA title,so basically most big titles. Even Blizzard increasingly is making sure its titles run on consoles. Even the Valheim dev is looking to bring it to console. Literally the only advantage PC seems to have is the use of keyboard and mouse,and certain modding support but I see more PC gamers using controllers now? More console games support modding,keyboard and mouse including Bethesda games.

With the cost of PC parts now,its actually much cheaper to just buy a laptop,especially as modern mobile CPUs are decent. I have seen laptops with an RTX3060 for under £900. But even that is probably slower than a console. You can't even get an RTX3060 for under £600.


So for new entries to PC building or someone who needs to rebuild an ancient system,its not cost effective now. Like my mate who had to replace their half broken FX6300 system,had their RX580 4GB go kaput. They spent nearly £1000,ended up with a Ryzen 5 system with a GTX980 4GB(which cost well over £200 at the time,because that is all they could get) which is worse than their RX580 in newer titles. They tried to hold on with their earlier GTX660 but it wouldn't work properly with their newer monitor.

They had spend years saving up for a new system,holding off playing new titles(either the CPU was too crap,or the GPU was too slow)and basically they can't really play anything very new,because mining has done a big dump on their build. This GPU which is already verging on 6 years old will have to last them years. In the end they really should have gotten a laptop. I am seeing this everywhere now.

Even the advantage of upgrading a desktop is ebbing away,as GPU prices for DIY sales are getting higher and higher. It will probably be more cost effective to just upgrade to a new laptop every few years,and sell the old one.

When it comes to AAA games,anything under a RX6700XT or RTX3070 is worse than a console,so you end up spending £700+ on GPUs(or £450+ looking at RRPs),for a worse than console gaming experience. Then you need to include the cost of an equivalent CPU,SSDs,etc and all the rest of it. Also the fact that PC games are worse WRT to hardware optimisations - the game in the OP proves it.Then that assumes you self build - if not you need to buy a prebuilt system for even more money with not ideal parts. Most people who have gaming PCs do not self build in my experience. The reality is that a modern console is more powerful than most gaming PCs out there.

The fact is outside enthusiast mates I am seeing more and more of my PC gaming friends,now buying consoles or considering them,or ditching desktops for laptops. More are moving away from self building and desktops.Then they use the console for anything which requires some graphical grunt and the PC for less intense titles. Many of them have been PC gamers for decades,and work in what would be consider geekier areas(computer science,etc).

Game looks fantastic although I'd love to have seen more dynamic use of the Rifts and really put the I/O under the kosh.

Exciting for the future of RTX I/O and the like on PC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

The problem is the kind of games like consoles are not like the gamecube era.

---

I don't know - I think the Switch has some great console-y titles - I'm looking forward to seeing if they release an updated version at some point.

Quote:

---

Plus why would you need a desktop for other things??

---

I agree laptops are a more energy efficient use for many things, but in my case I run lots of VMs, the occasional bit of modelling, plus media creation and toolkit use so local storage and RAM are primary concerns - both are super easy to upgrade on desktop. Audio quality is also better via my dedicated card, plus I can plug in odd experimental accelerator cards more easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terbinator

Game looks fantastic although I'd love to have seen more dynamic use of the Rifts and really put the I/O under the kosh.

Exciting for the future of RTX I/O and the like on PC!

---

The issue here is needs more people to move to newer platforms which support PCI-E 4.0,which is not all PC owners,as PCI-E 4.0 only became mainstream since 2H 2020(most Zen2 builds were on 400 series motherboards before that). It might work on PCI-E 3.0 but the consoles are definitely taking advantage of PCI-E 4.0 in this case.

It also needs,sufficient GPU power and more importantly feature support. The problem here is where are the mainstream RTX3000/RX6000 series GPUs?? The desktop RTX3060 is worse than the mobile RTX3060(less shaders),and since there is no FE,you are looking at £600+ for one. A GPU most likely worse than the top tier consoles.

The RX6700XT is in the same boat,ie,well over £600. An RTX2060 can be had for £450. RTX3060TI FE rarely drops. Is RTX I/O going to come to Turing GTX1660 series?? Nvidia only made some noise about the RTX2000 series. AMD I think won't support similar technology on the RX5000 series??

So most PC gamers are going to be stuck on older and older GPUs,meaning most average PC gamers won't be able to use a lot of this tech effectively. They either are going to be on platforms which are not up to date,or lack GPUs which have the support. So until more mainstream AMD/Nvidia GPUs arrive,its going to stunt adoption of this on PC for a while. Its why I don't think RT is going to have as much of an impact on PC,than it will have on consoles,until mainstream RT capable GPUs are actually a thing again(I mean in price and performance).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I don't know - I think the Switch has some great console-y titles - I'm looking forward to seeing if they release an updated version at some point.

I agree laptops are a more energy efficient use for many things, but in my case I run lots of VMs, the occasional bit of modelling, plus media creation and toolkit use so local storage and RAM are primary concerns - both are super easy to upgrade on desktop. Audio quality is also better via my dedicated card, plus I can plug in odd experimental accelerator cards more easily.

---

The updated version is the Switch,and a new one is coming out with DLSS. Valve is also making the Steampal(apparently).

The issue its all the quirky console games plus many games which used to be PC only. There is far more overlap nowadays.

Some of my mate tend to login to the local cluster to do things - so the ones who do have decently powerful desktops,are also enthusiasts who like mucking around with hardware. But even for the heavy hitting,having a few 100 cores probably helps more!;)

But the thing is the new Intel 10NM and AMD 7NM CPUs have really decent power in the tank. 8 decently fast cores,and 16GB/32GB 3200MHZ SODIMMs are not too hard to find now. So if I wasn't into building PCs,one of those laptops would easily have as much grunt as my main desktop(maybe more in some cases),for both non-gaming duties and even gaming now. I also will keep my GPU for at least a few years too.

Even my mates Ryzen 7 4700 laptop is light and powerful. 8 cores in under 1.5KG,and the new Zen3 ones look fantastic. Breezes through PS,and video conversion stuff. Also in the case of AMD,the APUs being monolithic means lower latency than the desktop equivalents,and local storage can be handle by a dedicated NAS or DAS. Its what I am doing as I have an SFF system.

My son's had this preordered for what seems like an eternity. We've told him it won't get delivered until Saturday so he actually sleeps tonight. I have to admit, I'm looking forward to it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Snip...

---

Not to hand wave any of that, but the shift to an SSD subsystem is probably the biggest shift in gaming since programmable shading, maybe even 3D acceleration?

Some people are going to get left behind, that's the nature of the beast, and even having an SSD as a requirement (not necessarily RTX I/O etc) will already be a huge step-up. Star Citizen is already showing what is possible with an SSD base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terbinator

Not to hand wave any of that, but the shift to an SSD subsystem is probably the biggest shift in gaming since programmable shading, maybe even 3D acceleration?

Some people are going to get left behind, that's the nature of the beast, and even having an SSD as a requirement (not necessarily RTX I/O etc) will already be a huge step-up. Star Citizen is already showing what is possible with an SSD base.

---

I agree,especially for openworld games. Even in my modded Fallout 4,one of the biggest bottlenecks is I/O and its one of the few games I play which can't be run on a HDD. Even my PCI-E 3.0 SSD,shows some minor advantages over a SATA one with one bunch of mods! So yes I do want it to be a thing,as I/O is a limitation in openworld games.

But I think SSD adoption is not the problem,its the kind of SSDs which will hamper PC.

RTX I/O which is basically Nvidia doing a FreeSync and rebranding MS Directstorage,but it works best with fast SSDs.Its going to take years for it to be of any important. Most people will get an SSD,but the issue is the adoption of PCI-E SSDs,and the platforms which make best use of it.

So as usual on PC,its going to have to be a half arsed implementation. Very few devs are going to suddenly make a SATA or DRAMless PCI-E 3.0 SSD,useless for games. The console devs don't need to care as they have proper PCI-E 4.0 SSDs,and even the expansion slots are PCI-E 4.0 IIRC! So consoles will leverage it much better than PCs currently.Star Citizen can afford to do it because of its funding model,but most AAA games can't afford to potentially lose a chunk of sales,by making sure you have to have the latest and greatest hardware.

Almost everyone I know who has a Zen2 system uses it on a B450/X470 motherboard. Some have a B550 motherboard,but only those from late last year onwards when price dropped. But they either got SATA or DRAMless PCI-E SSDs,ie,they are slower than my 2018 WD SN700! Intel consumer platforms only got PCI-E 4.0 this year! SATA SSDs,and DRAMless PCI-E 3.0 SSDs top the sales charts:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsell...ters/430505031

When it comes to GPUs:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

The PS5 has the equivalent of an overclocked RX5700XT,and the XBox Series X is faster than that. Only the RTX3070 at number 20 beats a console. The rest won't. Then on top of that how many of the GPUs in the Top20 can support RTX I/O properly? Even the top AMD GPU is Polaris!

Consoles don't need to care about legacy hardware as they will just have new generation exclusives. You can't do it with PC,as you will lose most of your sales! :(

I managed to get a little bit of time on the game this weekend, and I may have low expectations, but to me it looks gorgeous and plays really well, highly enjoyable, when I get the chance...