yes. It's 100 titles that will benefit from the new GPU and CPU that Cerny was original referring to. Thousands of ps4 games will be playable without getting the visual BC boost
-
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.
PlayStation 5 uncovered: the Mark Cerny tech deep dive [Digital Foundry]
- Thread starter Wollan
- Start date
yes. It's 100 titles that will benefit from the new GPU and CPU that Cerny was original referring to. Thousands of ps4 games will be playable without getting the visual BC boost
Do you want to point out where I'm wrong in my post, or do you want to ad hominem?
The issue some are having is that others are completely missing the context of the discussion and focusing solely on one or two words. That's disingenuous.
What is this post?
I spent a minute looking for a post from you regarding VRS. I think you said it was in PS5. It's not something Cerny and co decided to talk about or explicitly state in their GDC talk. Think it's in?
I haven't seen a single person refuse to acknowledge that.
Several are acknowledging that it is possible for the clocks to be at their peak for sustained times.
Yeah, those talking about why the video didn't go more in on the SSD, please read the article. Some interesting stuff in there.
It seems the more clearer it gets, the more some ppl can't seem to comprehend it.
I like how that part also mentions the console shutting down because of thermals. Someone in one of the other PS5 threads said the exact same thing.
I think some ppl are just focused on worse case scenarios. Don't be.
"...the overwhelming majority of the 4,000+ PS4 titles will be playable on PS5."
Unveiling New Details of PlayStation 5: Hardware Technical Specs [UPDATED]
Watch live for a deep dive into PS5's system architecture and how it will shape the future of games.blog.us.playstation.com
This has been clarified, discussed, and re-clarified to death already.
Still clear as mud..... cool !
I guess the difference between Xbox 4 and PS5 is like Xbox One X to PS4 Pro. Not big but noticeable.
Yes, which is why it's a theoretical upper limit. Talk of more bandwidth than that has no technical justification.
Here is the post you were looking for
PS5 and Xbox Series speculation |OT11| Cry Havoc and Let Slip the Dogs of War [NEW NEWS, NEW THREAD - CHECK OUT THE STAFF POST]
It’ll be largely the same.
www.resetera.com
There's nothing inherently wrong about discussing keywords. he did use the word 'potentially' and that caught the eye.
Check my post history if you will. I've never made comments about throttling or whatever before.
Actually I think it makes sense based on how gpus are transitioning. We are seeing with each iteration less depency on the fixed pipeline so assuming graphics data scales very well to the number of CUs, and that the gpu is designed around the number of CUs (with that I mean cache, roos, number of rasterizers etc) it makes sense to start see the number of CUs making performance increase as thread distribution improves.
Specially as more and more workloads are handled by the cu and are async to the graphics pipeline. Having a larger pool of CUs and thus more blank spots where async compute can execute.
And compared to this generation rdna 2 sees the geometry pipeline make the jump and be more compute based. We also have now machine learning and raytracing workloads all fighting for the same execution units, so that's 3 more workloads that will benefit more from a big array of processors to be distributed on than having faster units that have to execute them more linearly
I have to say that I really appreciate your posts in these types of threads. It really helps make sense out of this stuff.
You have consistently shown on this forum and especially the one that shall not be named that you lack a basic understanding of how tech and bizz works datinbg as far back as the PS2 so I reiterate my question. Why do you think you are qualified to authoratively talk about it now?
I bet, I BET, he thinks you're Jeff Rigby and thought he'd be clever arse about it.
i'm a noob but doesn't 22% just for the audio seems a little bit too much?
i mean we know that majority of people doesn't give a rat's ass about 3d audio...
It's been clear to me since the deep dive presentation. But for users like you I wonder why that is...
he says at some point that the SSD is so fast that games don't need to render anything that isn't in the player field of view, something that can potentially allow more free power...
I wonder if that could also be use for higher FOV's too
There is something inherently wrong with consistently misstating or ignoring context in order to promote a narrative. To be clear, I'm not claiming you are doing this, but other people in this thread are. And it is frustrating to read. The same points are discussed ad nauseum because some have it in their minds what is happening and no informed opinions from others will change their minds.
So you are looking at it backwards.
Any developer (including Sony) would ideally prefer the maximum possible GPU and CPU chip performance set at all times.
But that's simply not possible. You just are not able to reach these high clock speeds all the time under every possible workload.
The PS5 is designed to take advantage of the fact that variable performance allows the system to reach a higher performance level than it would if the same hardware had to conform to stable clocks. Stable clocks inevitably leave some performance on the table that the hardware would otherwise be able to achieve with more flexibility.
So, for example, if the SX could magically adopt this variable system with all other specs remaining the same, that would produce a stronger system in the end than the SX is now, not a weaker one. But I say "magically" because that's not possible, there would be trade offs for MS to do this that they did not want to make.
You have been following gofreak's commentary for 20 years?
The difference in gpu raw power in the PS5 vs XSX case is 16.5%, PS4 Pro to XBX is 42.8%. So the gap is very small compared to the mid-gen refresh consoles.
This is likely the case, given that games are dominated by GPU needs. It will be interesting to see how long it will take developers to utilize 8 standard CPU cores to a reasonable degree, now that consoles have them.
Certainly in the cross gen period I don't expect CPU power consumption to be anywhere near max. With that in mind I can see the GPU being allocated enough power to reach 2.23GHz for the foreseeable future.
That is for backwards compatibility in the cases where they can't guarantee stable game behavior above PS4 spec.
No the difference between the Pro and the X is bigger than the difference between the Series X and the PS5 based on the numbers we have. You stated them to be about equal which is why I disagreed.
nope it's less
xox has 1.42x faster gpu than ps4pro, cpu 1.08x faster and 12gb ram vs 8
xsx ~1.2x > ps5, cpu with ht xsx 1.03x faster, on the other hand ps5 has 2x faster ssd
Yeah right now developers are throttling the cpu to have the full 10.3 tflops on gpu constantly.
And since Zen 2 are much better than jaguar even though they are underclocked they can still reach 60fps with easy.
However, it seems that currently is not possible to have the cpu and gpu at their max clocks at the same time. You have to chose one or the other.
With the dynamic profile in place you could by Cerny claims have a scenario that is close to the max on both simultaneously, but how that is actually presented in practice remains to be seen.
What are the tradeoffs? I'm trying to understand what the cons are of variable clocks. I have never heard of variable clocks before so I'm curious why it isn't common if the benefits are as you explained.
Why do you think you're qualified to judge what I'm saying when you won't address it?
If you're not happy with my contribution, you can add me to your ignore list. I'm as qualified or entitled as anyone to share my opinion or understanding of things. As entitled to correction also, which you're failing to provide.
I think I know who you are, from all those 'old places'. We rarely agreed and that's fine. If you wish to be hostile though, just do us both a favour and add me to your ignore list, and I'll do the same.
Thanks guys. Both are monsters. Glad we have great CPUs now. The Jaguar was horrible.
He's saying there was a big gap between Series X and PS4 Pro. It was around 40%.
The gap between the PS5 and Xbox 4 is about half of that.
Not even close. The difference between them is the smallest between two same-gen consoles ever. If we also take diminishing returns into account, then the only differences might be in the game design (due to the SSD differences).
I really want to see some stuff on the OS, specifically something like that suspend feature for multiple games that MS showed off. How quick is the console to boot etc.
All this talk of incremental differences in specs between the consoles is great and all, but the experience using it will really be key for consumers.
All this talk of incremental differences in specs between the consoles is great and all, but the experience using it will really be key for consumers.
I remember him from the days of old, a simple gofreak neogaf google search confirmed what I already suspected
According to Cerny's presentation, the target is roughly 1 second for any game booting, so i doubt it will be much more than that for console bootup.
DF makes a point that increasing the clock without increasing bandwidth limits the performance gains, and as they show, for a rdan1 gpu with same amount of CUs and BW than ps5 at 1.9ghz you already start seeing the gains being disproportional (they increase 200mhz from 1.7 to 1. 9 and saw twice the performance gain than going from 1.9 to 2.1).
With the large bandwidth gap it's hard to tell where the performance gap of these machines are going to be and for what workloads. (kinda like in some games X can blast through the 40% difference due the higher bandwidth).
But I do think it is not sounding to be as drastic as X to Pro
User warned: antagonizing another member over a series of posts
I asked you a simple question, after being wrong for two decades reading tech and the market why do you believe you are right this time?
Everything else is just hubris.
Actually, with the speed of the SSD, I don't see a reason for not having more than two games suspended at once other than SSD space since the feature will require some amount that's not accessible by the user.
You need to have a much more robust cooling system, an overall design that is able to take advantage of the highest speed when available but also not suffer when clocks are running lower, be willing to factor total power draw into your game design if you want to achieve the best possible results, etc.
Last edited:
The real question is Sony's definition of "typical workload" for the next generation.
A light workload, such as the OS, some indie games, etc.. should be able to keep the clocks boosted at max indefinetly.
A max workload (think next gen Crysis) will have one, if not both clocks scale back, but we don't know by how much (they should have a fixed floor).
Where does Typical fit between those two? Obviously Sony won't say and only time will tell. But if you go by other electronic companies that have done boost clocks, its typically not both at max clocks when you hit the real world.
I think the only question I would have is how much it could truly scale back to under a max workload, and DF tried to get that answer, but Sony won't answer which is unfortunate but expected.
A light workload, such as the OS, some indie games, etc.. should be able to keep the clocks boosted at max indefinetly.
A max workload (think next gen Crysis) will have one, if not both clocks scale back, but we don't know by how much (they should have a fixed floor).
Where does Typical fit between those two? Obviously Sony won't say and only time will tell. But if you go by other electronic companies that have done boost clocks, its typically not both at max clocks when you hit the real world.
I think the only question I would have is how much it could truly scale back to under a max workload, and DF tried to get that answer, but Sony won't answer which is unfortunate but expected.
I read the article, and while it is great and in-depth on the technical side, I'm getting PS3 vibes. All of these exotic engines and magical hardware (ssd). It's sounding more and more like the run up to the PS3 launch, tbh. Cell was unique but nobody bothered to take advantage of it, really, outside of Sony's internal studios.
I walked away from that article asking when are they going to *actually* show this magical SSD configuration outside of Spiderman city blocks. They've been hyping it and hyping it all the way back to the Wired article.
I walked away from that article asking when are they going to *actually* show this magical SSD configuration outside of Spiderman city blocks. They've been hyping it and hyping it all the way back to the Wired article.