AegonSnake it's good to discuss this variable clock solution as it is new in the console space - and it's interesting to me how Microsoft went out of their way to promote fixed clocks to DF just before the Sony presentation - you think they knew about the PS5 architecture <hmm>
The reality is that:
- Cerny designed the entire system - he didn't just do the apu
- and his whole focus from when he was brought in to do the PS4 was making it easier for devs
- the gpu has 36 CUs partly to allow code developed to take advantage of that many CUs (ie defined as 36 parallel work streams) to be lift->shift to PS5
- the ssd is designed to literally get out of the way of developers - they issue a command and the packed data on the ssd appears as unpacked in memory with no further input (unless I mis-interpreted the presentation)
- he pushed time to triangle down from 1-2 months on PS4 to less than 1 month on PS5
- all the devs are super-excited (why because their jobs became significantly easier)
against this background, it's hard to then come to the conclusion that Cerny decided to use variable clocks as it would make life
harder for devs.
His whole design ethos is about ease of development, in all areas that have been publicly disclosed the ease of development is forefront.
I wouldn't worry that this variable clock decision is going to cause grief - on the contrary I suspect that it will be a net neutral in terms of development effort, but could be a huge net positive in terms of enclosure design, power consumption, form factor etc
It wouldn't surprise me if the PS5 has very very low power draw (much lower than expected) and extremely customised power supply etc.
There's an awful lot that hasn't been revealed yet from the dev talk on twitter and the fact that there are still big NDAs in place.
