• 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.

How hyped are you?

  • A little hyped

    Votes: 98 15.7%
  • A lot of hyped

    Votes: 50 8.0%
  • WALNUUUUUTSSSSS

    Votes: 222 35.5%
  • Hyped enough to eat this whole bag of walnuts

    Votes: 63 10.1%
  • Hyped enough to bite this moose

    Votes: 37 5.9%
  • Hyped enough to scramble a dozen eggs

    Votes: 39 6.2%
  • Hyped enough to be even more hyped, like, cyclical or something

    Votes: 116 18.6%

  • Total voters
    625
Status
Not open for further replies.

AegonSnake

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,566
I'm having hard time understanding your certainty on heat production for a wide and slow card that doesn't exist yet even in old architectures and hasn't been tested. Also, saying 50% increase in performance per Watt isn't necessarily uniform over the entire power envelope.
im just making an assumption that the cu/power increases will scale linearly.
 

Lukas Taves

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
5,713
Brazil
which would make sense except for the RDNA 2 efficiency of 36 RDNA 2 CUs don't seem like they would need the reported extra cooling we are getting rumors for or the high BoM rumors we are hearing. I cant rectify a cheap 36cu RDNA 2 gpu with a higher BoM and cooling system.
Not necessarily, the performance per watt figure increase are likely the best case scenario under a certain range of operation. When you go past the optimal spot you would still be seeing disproportional increases of consumption x increased performance (something like, you increase consumption by 75% but the performance only increased 25% for example).

It's likely RDNA 2 will support higher frequencies before this effect starts manifesting, but once it does it's a pretty stiff slope. But if on RDNA the maximum viable clock was in the north of 1.9X ghz perhaps now 2.ghz or perhaps even higher is on the table
 
Oct 25, 2017
17,936
So what happened today? Anything?
PS5 is RDNA 2.

RDNA 2 provides a 50% performance per watt increase over RDNA. It means they can clock higher without as much of a heat and noise penalty.
which would make sense except for the RDNA 2 efficiency of 36 RDNA 2 CUs don't seem like they would need the reported extra cooling we are getting rumors for or the high BoM rumors we are hearing. I cant rectify a cheap 36cu RDNA 2 gpu with a higher BoM and cooling system.
This is a good point.
 

MykhellMikado

Alt account
Banned
Jan 13, 2020
823
Hmm I wonder if RDNA1 really was the best they could get at the time for testing purposes and the had planned a 9Tflop RDNA2 gpu all along
 

El-Pistolero

Banned
Jan 4, 2018
1,308
Some people are having a hard time believing that PS5 might actually have more than 9.2 teraflops, no matter how much time goes by. I really don't know why though.

In all fairness, the same could be said of those who can not fathom the possibility of a 9.2 TF or lower console, even though a more conservative approach (very good performance for a reasonably priced machine) would make sense for Sony.
 

Silencerx98

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,289
Seriously, if we're going to be quoting random Twitter users with no proper credibility, we might as well be quoting Misterxmedia too. The ultimate irony is these people get quoted but reliable insiders like Jason Schreier got "outdated information" just to fit a pre-conceived narrative. Some in this thread have such blatant bias, it's hilarious
 
Oct 29, 2017
1,496
In all fairness, the same could be said of those who can not fathom the possibility of a 9.2 TF or lower console, even though a more conservative approach (very good performance for a reasonably priced machine) would make sense for Sony.
Yeah. I'm not particularly worried about price so I'd love a high powered machine, but isn't this all above and beyond what we thought we'd get even a year ago? MS seems to have built a super console that goes even further beyond that, I don't see how a 9TF machine is anything close to disappointing
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
43,385
tenor.gif
 

Silencerx98

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,289
I'm going to make a prediction. If and that's a big IF, PS5 does indeed turn out to be more powerful than XSX, I can see some already latching onto "Sony must be using RDNA1 figures while XSX is RDNA2, so Sony is misleading consumers!". Then we get into the whole architectural efficiency arguments again. Hoo, boy, that oughta be fun
 

CosmicBolt

Self-Requested Ban
Member
Oct 28, 2017
884
9.2 TF comes from Ariel [Navi10lite] 36 cu count at 2Ghz.

We don't know Oberon E0 cu configuration.

Klee info PS5 also having HW RT and VRS matches RDNA2.
 

Silencerx98

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,289
Who is this and why are you posting it? Your general behavior in this thread is to make driveby posts and subtly platform war. Guess I'll hit the report button again.
Off topic, but just wanted to say, I'm going through Yakuza 0 now and just got past that part in your avatar two nights back. Such an amazing introduction for Majima, haha
 
Feb 23, 2019
1,426
quoting myself, because my math was off. updated the original post.
these should be the correct numbers:

so now all of a sudden, that 2.0 ghz that was taking 161w should now take only 106w. zen 2 should only be 20w. maybe even less. gddr6 and the rest should be 30-50w and you can have a nice 170w console.

if MS is at 56 cu at 1.7 ghz, they are only around 97w for 12 tflops.

now the question is why would sony go with an 106w 9 tflops gpu when they can go with a 12 tflops 97w gpu. is 15% more die space really that expensive?

56 cu at 2.0 tflops should be around 148w. thats a 200-220w console. i really dont see why they cant do this.

edit: this also proves you wouldnt need a super expensive fancy cooling solution to cool that gpu. unless its really 56 cus running at 2.0 ghz.

56 CU @ 2GHz = how many TFlops?
 

Tiago Rodrigues

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Nov 15, 2018
5,244
In all fairness, the same could be said of those who can not fathom the possibility of a 9.2 TF or lower console, even though a more conservative approach (very good performance for a reasonably priced machine) would make sense for Sony.

Stadia is 10.7 Teraflops right? Haven't we heard from multiple reliable sources that the PS5 would be at least more than that?
I honestly can't picture Sony releasing a console in 2020 with worse specs than one from the year before...but it's just me.

Also, since when has Sony ever taken the conservative approach? PSone? Cause PS2 was the best console in the market when it was released. Same for the PS3. (even if it took years to be mastered). For the PS4 the same happened. Can you actually see Sony giving the powerful console to Microsoft? Cause i can't.

All of this doesn't matter anyway. Imagining Naughty Dog with a 9.2 Teraflops machine is already giving me goosebumps considering what they can do with 1,84 TFLOPS.
 
Oct 25, 2017
17,936
In all fairness, the same could be said of those who can not fathom the possibility of a 9.2 TF or lower console, even though a more conservative approach (very good performance for a reasonably priced machine) would make sense for Sony.
I think Sony creating the best console they can for developers over what will be a very long lifespan makes sense too.

And no, that doesn't mean it has to match or be above 12TF. I just think 9.2TF in the way GitHub suggests ain't how they will go about doing what I mentioned above.
 

Dashful

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,407
Canada
I'm going to make a prediction. If and that's a big IF, PS5 does indeed turn out to be more powerful than XSX, I can see some already latching onto "Sony must be using RDNA1 figures while XSX is RDNA2, so Sony is misleading consumers!". Then we get into the whole architectural efficiency arguments again. Hoo, boy, that oughta be fun

It'll be direct x api efficiency vs sony api.

9.2 TF comes from Ariel [Navi10lite] 36 cu count at 2Ghz.

We don't know Oberon E0 cu configuration.

Klee info PS5 also having HW RT and VRS matches RDNA2.
He also said early on that ps5 and xbox were getting an architecture beyond amd's 2019 offering. So basically rdna 2.
 

big_z

Member
Nov 2, 2017
7,827
Who he is is not important for this since he's just stating facts we already know. He just put the pieces together really.



Stadia is 10.7 Teraflops right? Haven't we heard from multiple reliable sources that the PS5 would be at least more than that?
I honestly can't picture Sony releasing a console in 2020 with worse specs than one from the year before...but it's just me.

You can't compare with stadia as it uses older tech. 9.2 ps5 would outperform it noticeably. Hell im not sure stadia is even living up to its 10.7 claim as it underperforms compared to an equivalent pc. Wether that's due to overhead or the beta nature of the service who knows.
 

Deep Friar

Member
Mar 17, 2018
779
Seriously, if we're going to be quoting random Twitter users with no proper credibility, we might as well be quoting Misterxmedia too. The ultimate irony is these people get quoted but reliable insiders like Jason Schreier got "outdated information" just to fit a pre-conceived narrative. Some in this thread have such blatant bias, it's hilarious
And then some have the audacity to wonder why people are loath to give info.
 

ShapeGSX

Member
Nov 13, 2017
5,255
I'm having hard time understanding your certainty on heat production for a wide and slow card that doesn't exist yet even in old architectures and hasn't been tested. Also, saying 50% increase in performance per Watt isn't necessarily uniform over the entire power envelope.
Also, "up to".
 

Ebtesam

Self-Requested Ban
Member
Apr 1, 2018
4,638
i don't know why people here fight

just wait and let the official news proves you right or wrong.

this endless fight will not works for both
 
Status
Not open for further replies.