That's probably easier to show over YT the difference. Take Skyrim, a slow paced game, having reflections at the quarter of the resolution in water, windows, etc., you'll definitely notice that while a 3rd person action game, probably less so. Playing GTA5 in first person view, again, will be very noticeable. On a driving game... well, even the normal stuff they do now, for me, is good enough.
Also take into account that apparently that "perfect reflection" is also done to save on performance and that was noticeable right away.
Am I'm not sure why people saw that as a hit piece, after all, that's the situation right now...
Because youtube compression is so bad that it's the only way to try and represent real world visuals and even then the differences can be seen even at normal unzoomed point of view where ps5 RT reflections look like an image without anti aliasing as the edge are daw toothed and not smooth.
It's not a hit piece, it's just a fact the PS5 games are using 1 Ray for every 4 pixels while RTX on PC games uses 1 Ray for every 1 Pixel creating noisy looking graphics
I don't think anyone feels threatened, well not PC gamers who have money to upgrade their PC anyway.
In the end these are alpha releases,so not final games. What is it?? 4~6 months before release?? How were RTX games on Turing GPUs,4~6 months before release,with alpha game builds and alpha drivers?? Do these consoles,run different quality and performance modes?? What was running,etc??
So on one hand,the games are still finalising image quality and performance,and secondly the uarch is not even actually available,so drivers and features are probably still be evaluated.If we used Turing as an example 4~6 months made a difference in performance.
Also,if you need to magnify images 200% that tells me the differences are not obvious without standing still and zooming into stuff,which is the same thing with tessellation. If that is the case for most of the target market,how is PC going to look "better" if people need to stand still,freeze frame the TV and start observing the image?? With PC there should no need for this as the image quality difference was obvious ,so it's really showing how much PC has slowed down IMHO. Plus if YT compression is so bad,again what is the point,as it might be obscuring other details??
Now considering the PS5 is around £400~£500,maybe a bit more,and the XBox One X is even more powerful,maybe some of these channels should make a £500 gaming PC,or even a mainstream gaming PC(they can look at Steam and determine mainstream parts),and see how it performs.
To put it in context,for a prebuild you can just about get a Ryzen 5 3600 and a RTX2060/RX5600XT for £1000. It gets even more expensive if want to purchase a SFF PC which these consoles are comparable to. So what advantages in performance does a £1000 PC have - nothing really as both the CPU and GPU are slower.
They are more busy extracting money from our pocket,and dripping out improvements.
This new generation of GPUs needs to be massively better than the old,at least double the RT performance of the old generation. I hope these consoles jolt them out of their complacency.
I am really excited too, especially for the consoles, the problem Nvidia faces is laid bare in the video that was posted above. The only way for Nvidia to protect their margins is to show clear water between their new products and the PS5/XBOX X.
Which means sadly, Nvidia and their allied media outlets debunking the AMD driven consoles by moving the goal-posts on youtube and other means.
The goal post for this console generation was to make 1080p/100fps/VRR gaming a non-issue, Virtual Reality a non-issue and 4k 'good' whilst wrapping it into an affordable, effortless package that looks stylish and does not sound like a Vulcan jet at takeoff.
There is absolutely no comparison to this console launch and the last one, we are truly about to get the generational leap that people like myself have been waiting for since the Dreamcast hit the shelves 20 years ago. And I believe that every console launch since the Dreamcast has been cpu/gpu hardware wise, a generational disaster with, a respectful nod to what Nintendo have managed to do with the latest Wii U given their budget and design constraints.
I am in the situation where for the first time i will probably spend more on console hardware than on PC GPU hardware.
I agree entirely with this,PC companies are more busy with their marketing. But,but the £1000 GPU is OK,it does XYZ,better than the console peasants. Except,most of the PC is also peasants,if you look on Steam too,as the mainstream is being hollowed out,with smaller and smaller improvements. So realistically one of these consoles,is going to be better than most mainstream gaming PCs. This is what happens when money men get involved with PC.
It's a hit piece because it's hypercritical of the advances of the next gen console that the current consoles do not do. Instead of exploring the differences in the games presented in a compare and contrast.
It's overtly negative towards those advances which comes off as a hidden agenda. For the games they criticized, Gran Turismo 7, what other litmus was used to compare hardware with? Absolutely none. Thus, why it's a hit piece.
They were gushing over RTX with an RTX2060!
