@RamRod88, the term you're looking for is gpu starvation. tflops are great for mining where you simply throw small chunks of data for heavy processing, not so much for pure real time graphic processing. It will have improvements if other spec is identical, but first improvement isnt linear but logarithmic as we can see in case of nvidia 2080 super and 2080 ti, and secondly the speed of memory controller and the internal data bus is extremely important and not taken under consideration to calculate theoretical output which is tflops.

@RamRod

I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about.

@Voodoo

Don't let the fanboys know that right now. Let the exclusives and developers do the talking.

Here are some quotes I posted a while back about CUs and clock speeds, taken from sites that know about tech and have been doing video card reviews for a long time...

"The GPU in the Xbox Series X has 3,328 Stream Processors across its 52 compute units, and because the GPUs are based on the same RDNA architecture, it's safe to assume that each compute unit has the same amount of Stream Processors. So, we're looking at 2,304 Stream Processors in the PS5 GPU, a pretty striking difference. Mark Cerny believes that clock speed is more important, but in our testing of graphics cards over the years, we've never seen a 20% increase in clock speeds make up for 31% less Stream Processors. " https://www.techradar.com/n...

"According to Mark Cerny, the PlayStation 5’s smaller GPU is more efficient than the wider, slower, core on the Xbox Series X, but this is an unusual claim we haven’t seen supported in testing in the past." https://www.extremetech.com...

About the XBO vs PS4, but the same idea is true today:
"These two GPUs support all of the same APIs and hardware features. The Xbox One can render a 3D image that looks exactly the same as one rendered by the PS4, it just can't do it quite as quickly. It's the reason why a Radeon HD 7790 clocked at 1GHz delivers worse performance in PC games than a Radeon HD 7850 clocked at 860MHz. There's just more silicon there to do the heavy lifting." https://arstechnica.com/gam...

Let's not think about the console wars for a second. Why would Microsoft choose specific components for their GPU if they weren't going to get the most out of it? It just doesn't make any sense.

Commander ’85 developer Marcin Makaj.

Ok? Who's that?

Graphic cards today have more CUs. They are increasing those numbers with every generation. Now Cerny is correct with more CUs being easier to use, but console games look like garbage compared to PC games. The frame rates are nowhere near those of PC and the graphics need to be scaled back severely on consoles. Moving forward, games will take advantage of more CUs as they get more complex. Newer cards with more CUs get better performance than older cards with fewer

In most circumstances the 12 TF Xbox will be the slightly better performer. Its basically the difference between a 2070s and a 2080s, which in game is around 15% more fps. However, simply reducing the resolution scaler down to 80% - 90% and both GPUs run identical, and 80% - 90% of Native 4K resolution shows no visible difference to the naked eye.

Games will look the same on both, the only time the Series X will flex its advantage is in games with Ray Tracing. I would say exclusives, but then Sony's first-party can simply load more assets in-game with their SSD, so that comes down to a preference of slightly Higher Resolutions (Series X) vs Slightly better in-game assets (PS5).

You can't distinguish between dozens of sounds at one time, our brains aren't capable. Your brain focuses on what it believes to be important and the other stuff becomes background noise. Just like you can't hear every instrument in an orchestra, they all blend together, creating a richer sound, but not distinguishable as individual instruments

The sounds indeed blends, but I still can easily tell if I'm listen to real orchestra, or to the recording simply because of multiple location of sound sources. When I'm hiking in forest the amount of sound sources is very large as well, but still you can easily tell what is where and the wide sound stage of reality can't be replaced in computer games by simulating only a dozen or 2 sound sources. So, more sources means much better immersion, even, if you wont be able to distinctly identify all of them.

Sound of a gun fire will be different depending of location - are you in building, in a silo, on the airfield, in a forest, in a cave. Sound-tracing have enormous potential here, when you have a dedicated chip to calculate soft surfaces, water reverb, or an echo. This is something what quickly will become recognizable. Additional level of realism, same (or maybe even bigger) as the ray tracing.

You said it yourself: even if they blend together, it will create a richer sound. And richer sound-stage, with easily identifiable sources, with sharper or dampened sound depending dynamically on environment will allow better immersion, better results, better sound and faster and easier development - sound is not anymore part of frame budget.

And all of it will benefit any person with or without headphones. So this is not a technology for chosen ones - anyone can enjoy it.
For me this is great update. Can't wait to see what can be achieved. We already seen UE5 demo which presented the new design paradigms for graphic. I believe Tempest can give something similar in sound area, which has been really put away for way too long.

I'm not saying any of your comments are incorrect. I'm staying 3D sound had been around decades, it's improved over the years, and that we can't distinguish dozens of different sounds from one another at once. I never claimed A3D is the same thing. Nothing I said is false.

Why are you posting these long comments defending tempest? I never said it was bad! I never said it won't be worth it! I'm showing people a little history, that technology for positional audio has been around a while. I gave an example of a cool demo from early technology from the 90s. Some of you get so defensive

sorry, but I'm not defending tempest. I'm quite excited and trying to explain things I find interesting in this technology. And this is something many people had no idea about.
I know this did exist for decades, but we never actually had chance to see a proper usage of it for larger market. This is the first time a big company decided to put this into mass market, so maybe other companies will follow and we will get the sound we deserve;) Sound was usually just a lot of bass in background.

Well then, I guess both of us are excited for 3D audio. I'm not trying to start conflict. I stand up for Microsoft, I know. DOS and Windows have been a part of my life since the early 90s, so in a way I've been gaming with MS the longest. I'm not trying to be a fanboy. Sony has been in my life a little less time, but I still hold them in high regard and buy their gaming systems

Maybe Dolby and Tempest can use similar sound design so devs can make the best of both without a lot of extra time. I just wonder which devs will choose of they have a smaller staff or budget

@ElementX

I'm not trying to start conflict.

I'm not going to believe you.