This. In the very least we'd have half the leaks saying that the XSX is 30% more powerful than the PS5. But we have 0% of them saying that.
-
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.
PS5 and Xbox Series speculation |OT11| Cry Havoc and Let Slip the Dogs of War [NEW NEWS, NEW THREAD - CHECK OUT THE STAFF POST]
- Thread starter Transistor
- Start date
- Status
This. In the very least we'd have half the leaks saying that the XSX is 30% more powerful than the PS5. But we have 0% of them saying that.
What do you have against hardware encouraged ray tracing or hardware suggested? It's revolutionary tech that will outperform even the Nvidia RTX 3000 series
I'm firmly in the "Hardware Imagined" RT camp.
Imagine RayTraced Dragons
What do you expect from this thread at this point? All we've gotten as far as news over the past month and a half is an article of questionable credibility from Bloomberg about PS5 pricing.
Fool! That's no match for the Hardware Prepared camp, look at this real time render
What a downgrade. Too much fog. Draw distance sucks.Fool! That's no match for the Hardware Prepared camp, look at this real time render
8 TF confirmed.
I think the github leak shows they're testing the cards used for future PS4 emulation in PSNow, each rack mounted card running multiple PS4 instances in a VM. So they can move on from PS4 hardware while being compatible with what will be in PS5 😉
Sorry for the very late replay back.... Drinking and posting is never a good thing... That's why i said to ignore it ;)
As for your CPU paragraph, i also want to see that :D. Wouldn't that be fantastic?? Stressing a Zen 2 8c/16t CPU, that game needs to be innovate. I also agree with your second paragraph but i do think even if the difference is "minor" it can and will result in a difference especially if both the CPU and GPU has a advantage and is in a system that is balanced without any noticeable weak spots.... Now whatever it is or isn't by much is up to the individual...
Btw, sorry off the accusation/feeling that you were talking down to me....... Just think of it as a boo boo ;P
This post really needs to be threadmarked for the future so anytime so random "new" poster comes in making the same tired arguments, we can show where is came from.
where was it ever said they currently use rack mounted PS4s for PSNow? The PS3 blade servers are known but I don't recall any indication they are using actual PS4 hardware rather than emulation.
Nowhere. I'm talking about the future when they'll need to support PS4 and PS5 (potentially) in Azure. I assume they can't just lift and shift what they're doing with AWS. However if they're doing PS4 emulation now they'll be using rack mounted servers already. So these tests could just be planning for the future.
Why are you not sure if PS5 is BC with PS4? We already know that it is.
Well... that's definitely a fresh hot take. I don't think so though, bein that sony is currently in partnership with MS specifically for their cloud streaming services. And this also suggests building two separate APUs... one specifically for PS4 PSnow games and one for the PS5 console. It doesn't really make sense being that we wil also be getting PS5 games in PSnow at some point. Better to just stick a PS5 type APU in there.
That's ok. And yes, a difference is a difference regardless. Just don't see a 10% difference being distinguishable in real-world usage. Whether we are talking a 10% lower resolution or a 10% lower FPS. The FPS one is even more obscure because of how these games generally run. A game with a 30fps lock is usually internally running at well over 30fps. And only drops to below 30fps when they are being stressed. But we how good we have got we using dynamic rez, rather than drop the FPS the native rez can be dropped instead to compensate.
And this is all happening not at a range of 900p-1080p but a range of 1800p to 2160p. Now I am sure DF can take a screenshot, zoom in by like 500% and point out the difference in rez between the two but that's not real-world use to me and why I say its indistinguishable. Or they can show the game running on both and te you when using the unlocked framerate mode this one averages 45-55fps and the other averages 38-50fps but how its better to just lock them both at 30fps.
God, my heart almost skipped there. Feels like they're enjoying messing with us.
twitter.com
PlayStation on Twitter
“Join the PlayStation Player Celebration for exclusive community prizes and more. Here's how to play and win: https://t.co/xr92EFRz6y”
twitter.com
User warned: Platform warring. Community generalizations.
Well, all this is like deja vu. Whenever we are about to enter a next gen, the narrative of the disinformation media comes out that the Xbox is much more powerful and that Sony is doomed.
I don't say that xbox is not going to be more powerful, in fact if it has 2 sku it makes sense that it's. What I don't believe is that the difference is significant.
But it seems to me that "arrogance" always comes from North America ...
I don't say that xbox is not going to be more powerful, in fact if it has 2 sku it makes sense that it's. What I don't believe is that the difference is significant.
But it seems to me that "arrogance" always comes from North America ...
Technically acceleration can be a negative quantity. It was under our noses the whole time.
GCN doesn't function well in a high TF environment. A 9TF RDNA will wipe the floor with a 12TF Vega card.
The water in Cerny's bathtub both reflect and refract using RT.
Bloomberg had a story about PS5's BOM rising to 450$ because of NAND and DRAM prices and that Sony is using a more expensive cooling solution. The rest was just arguing about what it means.
Why did Sony only use an 18 active CU chip in the PS4 and not a 28 active CU chip? In August 2013 AMD already had the RX 280 out, a 28 CU GPU for 249$ while "big Hawaii" was 44 active CU. Why did Sony use 18 active CU when 44 CU were available? Why not 28 CU which would have made the PS4 the console Epic was asking for (2.9TF)? Would you have written the same post regarding the PS4 in 2013?
Obviously I'm not saying that Sony couldn't have built a 28CU PS4, they could if that was their goal. Sony had a specific goal, to hit 399$ at more or less break even (which didn't happen because of the last-minute 4GB upgrade which cost them almost 50$ on the BOM). We don't know what Sony's goal is with the PS5. If it was again supposed to be a 399$ console, then yes, 36 CU totally makes sense. It might annoy some people in forums, but Sony's goal is to sell as many consoles with as little of a loss per console as they can. If Sony's high management thought 399$ was a smart goal, then Cerny will have to deal with that and build the best 399$ console he could. So yeah, 36 CU does make sense if Sony wanted to achieve one thing, 60 CU also make sense if Sony wanted to achieve something different. Because we have no idea what Sony's goals are with the PS5, we can't really tell what "makes sense" and what doesn't. Everything makes sense once you know what is going on behind the scenes.
Last edited:
Use a better comparison than big hawai and it 44 CUs, Sony will no use a 80 CUs GPU. If the PS5 is 9.2 Tflops I think for example the GPU will not be 36 CUs at 2 Ghz but 40, 44, or 48 CUs but with a much slower clock frequency. And this not means the APU will be bigger than the PS4 APU like aa 28 CUs die size or worse 44 CUs in 2013. Here with 36/40 CUs we probably talk about an APU tinier than the PS4 or PS4 Pro APU.
EDIT: For sure the cooling PS5 solution will cost more than 1 dollar.
40 CU PS5 would have probably been about the same size ballpark APU as PS4 if they wouldn't have removed L3 from the CPU. If we are talking about a 450$ BOM PS5, Sony could have had a 450$ BOM PS4 that had an "R280" inside, a 28 active CU GPU. But Sony didn't, because it didn't fit their strategy. And that's my point, if you don't know what is the company's strategy, you don't know what "makes sense". Nothing was stopping Sony from building a 400mm^2 APU accept the price point they were aiming at.
PS5 could be a 32CU console for 299$ and a 64 CU console for 599$, it all depends on what Sony wants to achieve. Considering we don't know anything about Sony's strategy and intentions, we can't judge what makes sense and what doesn't.
If Sony doesn't use
The real question is whether Sony placed the wrong bet by not predicting rising costs of other components. If the cost of the non APU components rises a lot then you would end up in a situation where BOMs between the two consoles are about the same but the difference in performance is significant. It's similar to what happened with the Xbox One where BOM (excluding Kinect) was similar to the PS4.
Well there a is a very good potential reason and that is to keep costs down. Of course they can do 48 or 60 or 80 if they wanted to, but the question is at what cost.
The real question is whether Sony placed the wrong bet by not predicting rising costs of other components. If the cost of the non APU components rises a lot then you would end up in a situation where BOMs between the two consoles are about the same but the difference in performance is significant. It's similar to what happened with the Xbox One where BOM (excluding Kinect) was similar to the PS4.
Again we know the PS5 CPU has reduced L3 and 36/40 CU is tinier APU than the PS4, this is a fact. Since when we are sure the BOM is 450 dollars maybe you are a believer cooling PS4 solution cost 1 dollar. ;)
Those numbers are wrong.
Ps4 shipped 7.5 million units in the first fiscal year.
So that analyst expect Sony to sell 1.5 million less Ps5
Alright... I give up.
As I said before, this thread becomes a lot more bearable if we can all just agree that sony for whatever reason (as many as they are) are going to be at 36CU and at 8-9TF. Cause for someone that says a lot of how we don't know what sony's goal is or was... you seem pretty sure about them being at 36CU.
Why wouldn't the PS5 have a smaller APU than the PS4 considering 7nm is more expensive per mm^2 than 28nm? It actually makes sense for a 399$ next-gen console to have a 310-320 mm^2 die considering it will probably cost more than the 348mm^2 APU the PS4 had and on top of that you have things like an SSD that will make BOM more expensive.
I haven't said that, I've said that posts like "it doesn't make sense for Sony to have 36 CU" or "Sony would never have 36 CU" are irrelevant because you have no idea what Sony's strategy is. There is a valid strategy using 36 CUs console and a valid strategy using a 56 CU console. IMO, I am pretty sure that Sony at some point wanted and developed a 36 CU console, because everything hardware-wise that leaked points to 36 CU. But I have no idea what the final PS5 hardware will be because we are missing too much information.
The point of my post wasn't to say that PS5 had 36 CU, just that 36 CU makes as much sense as 56 CU, it all depends on Sony's strategy and planning in the past 5 years.
Did the GitHub leak showed something new or is there another one? Last time I checked, it was a partial picture with incomplete data.
Oh, and DF also said it lacked context, so stop selective ignoring stuff.
Because they paid by wafer dixit Albert Penello himself and the price is not two time more expensive but maybe 10 to 20% more expensive per chip.
20% more expensive cheap means that in order to have another 100$ APU, like the PS4, it will have to be sub-300mm^2. So that's my point exactly, if you want to build another "PS4", you will build ~300mm^2 APU because of the higher cost of the 7nm node. Add to that rising DRAM prices and the fact that you have an SSD instead of a spinning drive, and even with a 300mm^2 APU your console is probably over 400$ BOM. If Sony was aiming to hit 399$ with minimal lose per console, even a 310mm^2 APU is pretty expensive.
So I will repeat my point for the fourth time, if you don't know what Sony's strategy is, the idea behind the console, you can't tell if a 300mm^2 or a 400mm^2 APU makes more sense. Both make sense, it all depends on the reasoning being each choice.
whats the expected granularity for CU layout? If Sony need 18/36 to be visible to the system for BC reasons, does that suggest a particular option for 40/44/48 etc in 'full' PS5 mode? Doesn't naturally suggest would need to be 54CU?
You initially asked the question, "why is this impossible?" (a straw man)
To which people clarified that it isn't impossible but very unlikely.
To which your counterpoint was that we have historical precedent with the XB1X — which I took to suggest you were arguing a point about the likelihood.
If that's not what you were arguing, then what was the point of your post mentioning narrow and fast CPUs (lol) and the XB1X GPU? Was it just a meaningless tangential point?
🤣 😆 🤣
Maybe PS5 has both hardware accelerated RT and no hardware RT... Shrodinger's RT!!!
You can have that on PC too and it's hardly affecting performance these days if done properly. In fact, it's better to have shaders in HL in a game code since this allows them to run optimally on future h/w which didn't exist when the game was made. Obviously a less of a problem for a console but considering that both MS and Sony are trying to move to a "platform" like ecosystems they should probably look into this as well.
To which I'm still saying that there is no "bloat" to talk about. Your example describes all PC graphics APIs, not just NV's implementation of DXR.
So it's a comparison of different games art styles then.
Well, NV's DXR drivers are simple enough to not be an issue even at this early stage of RT, at least when it's about performance and not bugs or stability issues. So for example there are zero gains in DXR in Metro Exodus benchmark between the game's release a year ago and now which to me means that there isn't anything left NV can improve in their DXR driver's performance - or trust me they would've already done this, being NV and being heavily criticized for RT performance in general.
Unreal actually performs fine on all h/w precisely because it's basically open source which allows h/w vendors to submit their changes to the renderer to make it run better on their h/w. It's the most unbiased performance indicator and comparison tool between different h/w there is on the market right now. Most other engines tend to be skewed in favor of some vendor due to different reasons (consoles being the main target h/w or the engine being built on some specific h/w configuration).
Okay, sorry if I was rude. The amount of pure crap people say about RTX on the web is astonishing really and it's sometimes getting to the point where you just start calling it what it is.
That's what all GPUs do when they manage global scheduling these days. Going from this to the external network is also possible - hence the NVLink and such interfaces - but this is mostly a s/w solution, not h/w. Cell itself as a piece of h/w also can't do this (IIRC at least) but you can make a Cell supercomputer which will work this way thanks to the OS (s/w) which will run on it.
Fun fact, FFVII is another over 100GB game. Destiny with all released content is 165GB, most of MS's games are around the 100GB ballpark and COD:MW is well above 100GB with DLC. I really hope there is a 2TB PS5 SKU because it seems like I would really need one :)
If Series X was targeting $500 and a fixed cost increases $20, its less of the overall BOM. If PS4 was targeting $400, its a larger cost compared to the target. Easier to absorb fixed costs when you have a higher BOM just as you expect some variance in your other targets as well. Also increasing to $520 is less percentage than $420, etc.
Now that real time Ray tracing is a thing which raymond is going to be the resident meme around here? Romano, Lewis, Charles? We gonna go full Liotta?
Between tons of games getting delayed, gaming news across PS5 and Switch Directs being a barren wasteland causing ERA to lose its collective mind and a deadly virus cancelling a ton of video game events and causing hardware shortages... 2020 is been a bad and weird fucking year for gaming so far.
Yeah, the SSD is cool stuff but goodness prices are still high. I'm curious how they plan to address soaring storage sizes.
- Status