-
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.
Scorn Developer Interview: "The new CPUs is where the biggest difference compared to current generation will come from"
- Thread starter MauroNL
- Start date
Cpu and ssd are obviously big jumps but I think that any "this will be the single biggest difference" claim sells the whole set of improvements short. We are getting tons of new gpu features that increase efficiency plus raw power.
Yesterday's demo wouldn't be possible without the gpu features that allow the gpus to be more flexible to process geometry without the cpu input or raw power for the lighting model.
Yesterday's demo wouldn't be possible without the gpu features that allow the gpus to be more flexible to process geometry without the cpu input or raw power for the lighting model.
I really think it just depends on what the developer's intentions and general game design plans are. If a developer wants to go crazy with physics objects and super dense worlds with lots of characters and AI and other crazy stuff, those are all things that having a much stronger CPU will enable. If a developer wants to not really focus on those things but have a much less restrictive world with fast movement speeds or crazy details, then the SSD will be much more important for that as the SSD will allow for much faster asset streaming and thus much crazier forms of transportation or even no loading screens (a big dream of BGS's Todd Howard).
I wish I could explain it better but I am not a game developer and this is just my understanding of things. Both the CPU and SSD are crazy improvements that will offer a lot of ways game design can change, but the biggest difference is just dependent on the developers themselves.
No I haven't, either way why wouldn't they? Epic and other devs haven't given then a reason to believe otherwise, as I'm sure xbox fans are quite pleased about the 12 tf and 17% gpu advantage.
Why shouldn't playstation guys tout an almost 50% SSD advantage?
Or should they listen to scorn devs who have vested interest in their exclusive Console platform (Xbox).
End of the say the CPU is pretty much the same, so PS5 will mach xbox there, but will xbox mach the ps5 ssd?
I know I'm hoping on, but it's all in good faith
To be blunt it's both.
Anyone who knows how systems interact will tell you need some form of ram/storage cause the needs cpu data.
No matter how you slice the data can be only processed as fast as the cpu or when allowed a gpu or offload mechanism.
SSD is benefitting from having the best console cpu ever than it would if it had say a lesser intel or a lesser amd in it. I will go far as to say you need a beefy cpu to feed that monster of an SSD. SSD, PCIE4/5 and the Ryzen era cpus are friends not mortal enemies.
For me in networking it's 3 orders in some metrics, thousands of percents and flat out 2-4x gains where most gens we get percentile gains in those categories.
In queueing alone cause it holds up insanely, I got to take out old ArmV7 processors, think about that vs even switch processors to basic ryzen 1 then 2 and now these.
I went from one process per core for some topologies I make to 4 to 8 depending on client needs.
Last edited:
It's interesting to hear the comments about responsiveness and smoothness and it's completely true that it doesn't sell consoles to most people. In an ideal world a console generation would focus mainly on making 60fps standard but as much as people talk about wanting that to happen they're not willing to make the sacrifices elsewhere. The best we can hope for is that more developers give people options when the new gen comes around since not everyone is looking at 4K as necessary.
The Scorn kickstarter even explained they were going to re-reveal the game with a gameplay trailer, but the Inside Xbox offer meant they didn't have time for that:
Just look which devs are actually saying CPUs, which devs are saying SSD.
The GPU and CPU for PS5 are both running on variable frequencies. What is listed in the specs are their maximum frequencies, but they will vary based on the thermal budget of the SoC vs the workload.
it may need to reduce the power by 10%, which Sony says only requires a drop in frequencies by a few %.
XSX are all sustained frequencies. 3.8 ghz for 8 cores/16 threads or 3.66 ghz for 8 cores/8 threads. GPU locked at 1.825 ghz
User Warned - Platform Warring
To be fair, its a good bit more than 17 percent. PS5 is a 9.2 TF machine that reaches over 10 with after burners on. Keep them on too long and it'll explode. But the SSD advantage is undeniable. It's almost like they have a template for game design that they made a console for.
Funnily enough, despite XSX getting marketing for Valhallah, the PS5 is seemingly better placed to stream its open world in a (shorter) blink.
I had no idea about the lighting tbh, I knew about the resolution differences.
Note that the PS5 CPU is 3.5ghz in both standard and SMT mode so when devs start using SMT the difference is CPUs between the Series X and PS5 becomes nonexistent.
Its frankly incredible how close the stats are this time, less than a 15% variance overall this time (excluding the I/O).
Glad MS went all out this time..nothing was gimped.. I really can't wait to see what XGS teams will do with the hardware.
Then why bother making it variable to begin with? It would be better from a marketing perspective to cap it at 99% output and not have the ambiguous *VARIABLE fine print.
This bullshit again.... It will stay at the max frequency most of the time and it will very seldom have drop any frequencies.
It has its own set of benefits but lets keep it on topic and not derail the thread. Cheers
There are very good reasons for it and that major one is predictable thermals based around a power draw.
That's a super good point considering if we added up all the sony exclusives with engines that are more like that it becomes obvious what sony wants to do well without much issues or certain 3rd party devs like rockstar, activision, ea, ubisoft alone.
Cause in the era of gpus and cpus we have outside of 24/7 ocs it's wasteful to just let thigns max out.
as long as cstates aren't cauing problems what's the real issue you could complain about. You get max performance as the title needs and with an fps cap it literally only taking power and cycles it needs. The beauty of this design is because of this gpu and cpus now have more power for extra things to do.
User Warned - Platform Warring
The PS5 CPU is only 3.5 GHz when the GPU isn't taxed. If a game is GPU intensive and the PS5 CPU throttles down to 3.2 GHz the Series X could version could opt to use the 3.8 GHz mode which would mean a 600 MHz difference! That's a huge difference when comparing the specs.
Can you show where u got 9.2 tf machine from ? If u refer to 2 ghz github clock in 2019 which leads to 9.2 tf , xsx clock was 1.65ghz in that github test of 2019. They both increased clocks on rdna2 by 250 mhz (ps5 to 2.25 and xsx to 1.85) which means rdna 2 allowed both to increase the clock while staying in the allowed TDP.
So again do you have source for saying its 9.2 tf ? Cause that's news to me
A whopping 3% difference will surely provide quite the difference right.
Exactly. It can be both.
Other devs talking about Series X even said both.
Speaking of narratives, this is the real one here, lol
No game pushing the system with CPU intense gameplay will ever use the 3,8 no SMT version of the XsX outside badly unoptimized indies perhaps.
And this bullshit that the PS5 cant maintain max frequencies is bs and even confirmed by for instance our very own Matt here. The PS5 is a 10.2TF machine with a 3.5Ghz CPU and the amount of time it won't be is so infrequent it wil not amount to anything visable.
thats definately not true:
as per cerny:
" There's enough power that both CPU and GPU can run at their limits of 3.5GHz and 2.23GHz, it isn't the case that the developer has to choose to run one of them slower."
PlayStation 5 uncovered: the Mark Cerny tech deep dive
On March 18th, Sony finally broke cover with in-depth information on the technical make-up of PlayStation 5. Expanding …
www.eurogamer.net
PS5 CPU has a variable clock though, 3.5ghz is a peak rather than constant. But I agree the difference between the CPUs won't provide any significant real world difference.
This is a very efficient way of telling people not to take you seriously. Era is not the only place I'm seeing this "PS5 is a 9.2TF machine! Sony overclocked it just so it could reach 10TF for marketing purposes!"
And, not that you care, but it's the opposite - PS5 should spend most of its time at max clocks. Based on what's been said, it doesn't even seem like the machine will downclock enough to reach 9.2TF.
I think people need to start looking at the dynamic clocks as being "devs can back off clocks when they don't need it" instead of "devs can add clocks when they need it". I think people got confused when he talked about "boost mode", but that's only in reference to backwards compatibility, not regular PS5 games.
Look, I don't give a shit about console wars, the person I was quoting Japi saying they are exactly the same is being dishonest. There's likely more than just the speed difference like differences in cache, etc.
Best case scenario from 3.5 to 3.66 is 4.5% with smt
Best case scenario from 3.5 to 3.8 is 8.2% without smt
Will it make a difference, maybe a bit. Maybe a bit more if PS5's cpu needs to flex less for the gpu. Maybe in certain cases PS5 cpu comes out ahead. Let's state the facts as facts as we know them and wait for the games to prove it.
No it wasn't accounting for that. I posted that on my lunch break lol
Well yeah. 7th gen went for a multi core/ multi threaded setup when single cores was common.
Then the Jaguar CPUs came in when they're targeted for notebooks
Then the Jaguar CPUs came in when they're targeted for notebooks
I've been telling folks for months to go for 3700x over a 3600, and for their sakes I hope that's enough CPU for them, and I was just wrong - but I don't think so, especially for 60FPS. It's gonna be a rough few years for PC players from the jump.
Yeah, a lot of people just assume that because few games get considerable penalties with 4 or 6 cores that it's just "the limit" for parallelization in games, when it's just that devs never had even consider it before when an Intel core could easily do more work than two Jaguars, with both the frequency and IPC differences and all.
It's really both. Trying to argue about which is much more revolutionary is just arguing for the sake of it.
I can swear all the literature on the subject says the exact opposite. So I am curious to know where you are getting your information.
Unless I am grossly mistaken and my grasp on English (which is the only language I speak) is limited, I think Cerny saying that the system will maintain its peak clocks most of the time is the literal opposite of you saying that the system will not be at peak clocks regularly.
Anyways, at the end of the day none of that shit matters.
We already got a taste of higher CPU in Xbox One and later Xbox One X going from 1.3TF up to 6TF but we never had the chance to experience SSD games ONLY even on PC. So it's very easy for developers to target more powerful CPUs but targeting SSD ONLY is a new thing in my opinion