-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Next-gen PS5 and next Xbox speculation |OT10| - We aim to transition those from OT9 at a pace never seen before. [SEE THREADMARKS FOR CHANCE AT GLORY]
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
- Status
It has testing for exactly the same clock frequencies of the PS4 and PS4 pro, which is assumed would be for backwards compatibility purposes. It would be very strange for new chips to be testing for those odd frequencies unless it was somehow related to Playstation.
there was a developer poll about game subscription services on the Road to GDC 2020 poll where it was split with slightly more developers saying it will harm the industry
This is a completely warrantless assertion. Further, it ignores the fact that developing novel features, means of production, or marketing can be a fruitful path to expanding success. If disparate highly-qualified design teams repeatedly avoid a new approach, it's not because they're a bunch of mindless sheep. It's because they've assessed the possibility, and agree with other teams' previous judgment it's not worth it.
This is all covered in my post, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Thanks for more detail. The just-so story I laid out wasn't ever meant to imply that Oberon got bigger and more performant with the steps. Rather that architectural improvements and tweaks developed by AMD's Navi team after Oberon was finalized were rolled back into it. This to provide a more authentic response to dev work forced to proceed on the Oberon hardware (though still limited by its notably lower performance than "Titania").
I recall discussion in a previous OT about some AMD RT tests, or claims, that seemed to indicate their raytracing solution did indeed scale better with CUs than clocks. I could be remembering wrong. Perhaps anexanhume or others have a better handle on this information.
Because "Titania" wouldn't be available until less than a year before launch. But due to the strategy change, Oberon is already around. And it shares a good amount of hardware with its successor. So you can make the best of a bad jon and test revisions by stepping it instead. Then you've got a collection of lessons learned that can be rolled together into a single step on "Titania".
In my layout of the reasoning, "Titania" is almost 18 months behind Oberon on the production timeline. Are the database leaks we have from 2018? No. So at this same point in its development track, Ariel/Gonzalo/Oberon hadn't been spotted publicly yet either.
There's a hard stop at the end of all this--actual launch!--so "Titania" has to proceed a little faster than them. But even so, the calendar I explicated means that the bigger hardware literally didn't even exist until one or two months ago. It'd hardly be a surprise if it hasn't had a chance to surface visibly yet.
(Lest others misconstrue my intent, I'll repeat that I think there's too much special pleading in this scenario to make it likely. I just intended to show that it's not impossible due to time constraints, as many have incorrectly claimed.)
Technically, it didn't say "full CU count". It says a BC-test metric is a "full chip result". That could definitely mean there's no more hardware available. But it could also plausibly mean this is the result when using the hardware to the fullest it allows for BC.
You yourself have pointed out that AMD is about to reveal new progress in the Navi family that could raise the clock sweet spot 10 to 20%. The 5700XT already runs at 1.75GHz sustainably. A 15% lift would be 2GHz. That'd make a 48 CU chip hit 12.3 TF.
The TF calculation is very simple. And since CU counts are always even, and extreme low and high values can be thrown away, that leaves few possibilities. You can stumble on the right one very easily--especially with very rounded clock figures too, like 1.8 or 2. What'd be impressive is a 9.272 TF prediction that came true. Because that requires a very precise clock figure.
There are multiple proposals for how Oberon's leaked tests may not be indicative of final PS5 hardware, and not all of them require it to be a completely separate chip.
I'm pretty certain GitHub doesn't state a TF number for Arden. Only a CU count. (And other unrelated tech details, such as theoretical RAM bandwidth.)
This is incorrect. You're right that an RTX compute unit is ~20% bigger than prior Nvidia architecture. But most of this is the improved tensor cores. Only about 8% comes from the RT cores. On Navi, 8% of a CU is about .2mm^2 (note the decimal). That's about 12mm^2 total for a 60 CU chip.
Of course, AMD's solution might require more space. But there's no evidence for that yet.
No. An 8-core Zen2 from the desktop range is 76mm^2. However, we have a benchmark leak strongly suggesting that PS5 is using a version where L3 cache is massively reduced, leaving a 50mm^2 total size. (That's measured/calculated, not rounded off to the nearest 5 or 10.)
Let's assume PS5 retail is much stronger than Oberon. Next a question: do you think PS Now will be able to stream PS5 games? This seems certain to me. But if so, why design server hardware that can only play PS4 games? In your scenario, Oberon can't match the retail PS5. So now you need twice as many server blades to operate PSNow: Oberon, and also something to do PS5-level titles. There doesn't seem to be any upside to that.[/QUOTE]
I actually think the hardware in either the PS5 or Series X should be able to do all of this. The Xbox One X ran a lot of games at 4k/30 with a CPU 4-5 times less powerful, a GPU that will likely be half as powerful, much less and slower RAM, and pathetic 5400 RPM hard drives. I mean even the PS4 Pro delivered true 4k in some games and it had 1/3rd of the GPU power we are likely to see. We are going to see some awesome things this gen. I'm really excited!
I'm not a fan of the Bluetooth speaker sarcophagus, but I actually really like the dev kit 2 design, if there was a retail option for that housing I would be all over it.
At this point. If Sony said anything, there will be spin to counter it. Guys putting up graphs here, neat assumptions in dolled up spreadsheets paraded around in bad faith, Im sure. And after PS5s reveal I guarantee that BUT I'm sure Sony will give us some white paper specs. That way we have hard facts to work with.
Utterly ridiculous that MS literally showed their box but haven't given us solid specs.
That TFlops response from Phil Spencer is embarrassing at best.
He should have just told us how many Vegeta's, Cell's or Yamcha's it is.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I just thought about the fact theres no evidence Oberon has HW RT. So it could be a single solution for all legacy platforms and not PS5. For PS5 streaming, maybe they would use final PS5 SOC in seperate servers. I guess... it depends on how valuble Sony views backward Compatibility of legacy platforms PS1-4. But the fact Oberon has no HW RT... it's a big factor in me thinking it could be purely for PS1-4 Backwards Compatibility streaming, and PS4 emulation in native 4K. Which is the magic number Cerny brought up in saying getting current gen PS4 games to Native 4K requires.
From two years ago..
Thanks for posting this, I've never heard it before. That is a great podcast if you want to understand what Microsoft is doing with GamePass. So much quality content there.......
It's either good news or a tapeworm. I'm rooting for good news!!! 😃
I am tapping out, mister chris metal. you win all of the fucking internets right now?
Lol Wow.
But judging by the overkill venting in Prospero, I dont think these vents could even cut it.
My PS4 Pro currently sounds like a Learjet, this will likely sound like a SpaceX experiment about to blowup on it's launchpad.
Edit:
Has ZhugeEX commented about the whole Fortnite thing, was it *just* a joke and not a hint for Playstation Meeting?
Don't do this to yourself. Tomorrow is only a hope, it's never a given. Once you are old you know that 99.9% of tomorrow sucks, if you have no control over it. Better to come to this realization early on. No one of us has tomorrow for sure.
edit: thank the maker of you survive and if you are not a secular person thank your body.
Vega 64 GCN
4096 Shading Units
256 TMUs
64 ROPS
64 CU
12.58TF
5700 XT RDNA
2560 Shading Units
160 TMUs
64 ROPS
40 CU
9.754TF
If you want to believe those 12 TF are RDNA flops. Then you're looking at a gpu that outperforms a $400 gpu in a $499/$599 console. I just find that hard to believe.
4096 Shading Units
256 TMUs
64 ROPS
64 CU
12.58TF
5700 XT RDNA
2560 Shading Units
160 TMUs
64 ROPS
40 CU
9.754TF
If you want to believe those 12 TF are RDNA flops. Then you're looking at a gpu that outperforms a $400 gpu in a $499/$599 console. I just find that hard to believe.
Believe it, and then add storage and. a new CPU.we are at no less than our wildest imaginations, but it does all appear to be true.Vega 64 GCN
4096 Shading Units
256 TMUs
64 ROPS
64 CU
12.58TF
5700 XT RDNA
2560 Shading Units
160 TMUs
64 ROPS
40 CU
9.754TF
If you want to believe those 12 TF are RDNA flops. Then you're looking at a gpu that outperforms a $400 gpu in a $499/$599 console. I just find that hard to believe.
Albert Panello comments on SOC design (3)
It is entirely possible that Sony has been developing, in parallel, two completely different SOC's. I've said before it would be costly to do it, but you seem very convinced about it and I will concede that while I've never heard of such a thing happening since the Dreamcast days, it not impossible and therefore becomes simply a difference of opinion.
I will give you two reasons why I reject it, which of course you may disagree.
First, if there are meaningful difference in performance between the two chips, there will be meaningful differences in cooling and other support components. At a minimum this is an entirely different motherboard layout and cooling design. Therefore Sony would have to engineer two different *consoles*, not just two different chips, to support both scenarios. Otherwise you would have to believe that Sony is over-designing a bigger box (which comes with cost) to have the headroom to support two different SOC designs. So they would be willing to eat both the upfront costs of two silicon programs but also risk over-building a form-factor to support these different outcomes? The elegant HW designs Sony has produced so far don't suggest to me they do anything other than build a holistic system that's highly integrated between the silicon and system design. It's just far too inelegant and expensive.
The second reason (which I'll admit is more subjective) is that this idea also implies Sony isn't confident in their own strategy. That somehow they feel compelled to pay for option value just in case Microsoft does something that scares them. I just find it hard to believe they don't know exactly what they want to build, and what they want it to cost, and have already considered what the competition might do. I just don't believe Sony is so worried about Xbox that they are going to be the ones holding option value and taking this kind of risk and cost.
I think the most likely scenario that we have here is that Sony planned on a Jaguar-based console in 2019, be that PS5 or a PS4 Pro Plus, rejected that idea and moved to a Zen-based console for 2020 which is the PS5. That change seemed to have happened in 2017. If that's true (and I believe it is) then it would be further hard to believe they went and decided to spin up two different 2020 SOC's, both going through a full validation phase, only to wait to see what Xbox does then decide which one to put into production.
And even if you believed that - I can say with a high degree of certainty that they would have needed to abandon one of them at least 6 months ago to launch this holiday.
Just my $.02.
We tend to revisit the same things every 200 pages or so....... :)
I can understand why devs are afraid.
Subscription services siphons away potential purchasers.
A significant number of PS+ games are ones I already own.
Of next months 3 games - I already own the Bioshock Collection and Firewall Zero Hour.
If those games are available day 1 on PS+, I keep paying Sony the same flat subscription fee.
But I would no longer purchase those games.
At the moment, devs are seeing an uptick in sales from having their games on Gamepass - but I'd bet those are non-gamepass subscribers picking up the new trending game. That'll happen less when Gamepass has a higher percentage of subscribers, and there's more competing content available on the service.
This has to be a statement that does not take into account a lot of business cases that are all there, and why it is they have failed.
I am sure that someone at Kodak thought that not going digital was a great idea.
I am sure that someone at Microsoft thought that the best way to combat Android was to buy Nokia and not make moves that would have appealed to phone makers.
Someone at Research in Motion thought that keeping things as they were, more of the same was great at a time when every major phone company was going touchscreen on a lot of their products.
Some people at Sony saw their business dominance in TV, Walkman disappear.
Jack Welch who used to be GE's CEO, was seen as a success, but he gutted GE's manufacturing capability and what you have is the husk we have today. Boeing which used to be a leader in plane manufacturing back in the day cannot seem to meet the following, put out a great plane that is on time and within budget. Last time they did that was on the original Boeing 777. And you now have a product line that is poor compared to the competition, all except a single jet.
These are not mindless sheep. Neither are the guys at Nintendo who followed up a successful Wii with the Wii U, and followed up that with the mega success that is the Switch.
Microsoft did not have to put a hard drive in the original Xbox, Nintendo did not have to have docked and undocked modes, when playing online was free, Microsoft charged a fee for Xbox live. All of these were not worth it. The hard drive is now part of gaming, paying for online gaming is a revenue stream for each console manufacturer, and the Switch is a runaway success.
A lot of times, companies just stay the same for no other reason than this is what they have been doing and they see no need to overhaul the system.
I think it was clear.
Why you only need 24hr to a week max to announce a state of play
Digital Foundry also confirmed that was about right with one of their sources, and the die size being basically 400mm^2 means its probably right around that unless there is some other secret sauce taking up all that space (esram anyone? haha)
I recall reading that MS were designing two mid-gen chips, one for 2016 and one for 2017. Obviously the 2016 chip was abandoned in favour of Scorpio. Can you tell us anything about that?
This is the Phil quote, right? There were two different *plans* - a 2016 version and a 2017 version. Two chip designs. But two completely different chips were never developed.
I was actually on IGN and talked a bit more about this too. The team started thinking about the idea of Scorpio back before the original Xbox One launched in 2013. I think I presented the first plan in either late 2012 or early 2013. There were different options for different years, starting with a 2016 version, and as Phil said he pushed the team and we came up with a 2017 version. But there was never a 2016 chip created.
Last edited:
I would love to see AR for consumers being done by Microsoft with the Hololens. I played around a bit with the Magic Leap, but although it's got some cool features, the experience still seems really half-baked
That's worth way more then two cents.
As always really appreciate all of the insight.
Sony doesn't want to or need to play the power game if they don't want.
They likely had a target price and one that has done amazingly for them and design for it. I've been harping this for months.
A one console sku targeting $599 nearly killed them. They came back with a $399 that did amazingly well.
Do you really want to be in a board meeting at Sony trying to justify why you need a one sku launch trying to be the most powerful just so the internet likes you considering it's history and how critical it is to their survival?
That is an incredibly hard sell unless you had a cheaper option...
They want power at a reasonable price to accelerate adoption. That's the name of the game. IMO they will design an elegant and powerful console at $399 with the specs to match
Ban shinobi because he is an evil mother fucker lol why would he do this to us lmaooooooo
Ah I see. How much of an investment does a chip require to be developed? Are we talking hundreds of millions? Also what happens if you run into major issues that might require a redesign of some sort deep into the development process? Are there no viable backup plans that won't break the bank? Thanks for any answers!
I sure hope your wrong. Something at 399 would probably be very underpowered.
Quick question, sorry if this has already been explained and I simply missed it:
If Lockheart is indeed real and what you said about SOCs, will it just be the same as Series X but with CU not activated to cut costs and produce the system for a lower price?
Here I was thinking they would be two completely different chips sets developed in tandem. However, reading your post that would probably be too costly.
But why go through all of the iterations and testing to make a separate APU for the cloud when you could just use the one you are putting in your actual console? Especially if it is going to be close to the same physical size (a 9 TF chip and a 12 TF chip are not going to have massively different die size with RDNA). You incur huge costs to design the chip, and then have to mass produce 2 different chips. It doesn't make a ton of sense.
That looks pretty cool 👌 Shape may be cost prohibitive vs a standard rectangle though.
This is a few months old but I find Remedy's comment about the PS5 SSD's fast streaming freeing up CPU bandwidth to be very interesting.
Remedy Explains What Control Will Be Like On PS5 - RespawnFirst
Control has already released on the current generation consoles but it is also coming to PS5 and Xbox Scarlett. Here is what the game is going to be like.respawnfirst.com
I can't wait to hear more about it from devs!
Sony building in a blitter
seriously though if you have streaming heavy engines, and your SSD can serve you 5GB/s which may need at least some decompression and sorting into ram - is that heavy enough you'd need to factor in for bandwidth contention and even CPU? Seems it might be. These consoles might benefit from some 'super onion' type of Bus arrangement to not choke when GPU/COU and SSD are all vying for bandwidth
iirc, the SSD patent includes a decompression module on the SSD to (presumably) decompress the contents straight into RAM without any involvement from the CPU.
Here are few tidbits thanks to Osiris :(grain of salt and all as none are confirmed things )
both are listed $499 in GameStop with temporary SKU number however xsx has a 449$ sku as well( maybe a 500 mb version)
DS5 is 69$ but xsx pad is 59$
both are above 10 tf 100% according to their info .
Other than the games we know there is a game called broken filter under ps5
both are listed $499 in GameStop with temporary SKU number however xsx has a 449$ sku as well( maybe a 500 mb version)
DS5 is 69$ but xsx pad is 59$
both are above 10 tf 100% according to their info .
Other than the games we know there is a game called broken filter under ps5
I agree with that. How just for fun - how about DLSS or some other kind of ML hardware?
- Status