Yep, MS knew the specs of PS5 and wanted to set the narrativere-reading the digital foundry article on the series x specs and this stood out like crazy
Yep, MS knew the specs of PS5 and wanted to set the narrativere-reading the digital foundry article on the series x specs and this stood out like crazy
one of my friends sent me this on whatsapp. Could be MS going to market this that way !! image is not verified.
As in Microsoft is worried or?
No, they saw an opportunity to claim part of their machine was better and they took it.
looks like we'll be getting a demonstration of ray tracing on RDNA2 tomorrow
DirectX Developer Day Schedule - DirectX Developer Blog
Tomorrow (3/19) is DirectX Developer Day! Join the Microsoft DirectX team, along with partners AMD and NVIDIA, for a series of talks and demos covering the future of gaming graphics: The New Features and Unprecedented Opportunities of DirectX 12 – Jianye Lu The New Standard for Next Gen Games –devblogs.microsoft.com
How would variable clock rates be a good thing performance wise? They are there to keep the cooling under control, not to increase performance. This is also the reason MS stressed this so much during their presentation. That basically means that XSX cooling can handle any load (and hopefully stay quiet).No, they saw an opportunity to claim part of their machine was better and they took it.
Obviously it remains to be seen if the variable clock rates on PS5 end up being a good or a bad thing in the end.
I asked this in a different thread and didn't get an answer, but would the PS4 Pro's higher fillrate explain why a lot of games had better framerates on Pro?If I am not mistaken the fillrate of the Ps4 Pro was even greater than that of the One X (64Rops 911mhz vs 32Rops 1172Mhz) but in the end the One X performed way better (I believe it was due to the higher bandwith)
How would variable clock rates be a good thing performance wise? They are there to keep the cooling under control, not to increase performance. This is also the reason MS stressed this so much during their presentation. That basically means that XSX cooling can handle any load (and hopefully stay quiet).
They did, the XSX has some serious cooling for sure. We will find out soon with real games :)
I'm not convinced it will be a good thing and will just add needless complication for devs, but I also don't think Cerny and Sony are stupid so I'm going to wait and see how it works in practice.How would variable clock rates be a good thing performance wise? They are there to keep the cooling under control, not to increase performance. This is also the reason MS stressed this so much during their presentation. That basically means that XSX cooling can handle any load (and hopefully stay quiet).
I asked this in a different thread and didn't get an answer, but would the PS4 Pro's higher fillrate explain why a lot of games had better framerates on Pro?
Yes. It was very quiet running games and demos.
What happening in 9 hours?
DirectX 12 presentation. We'll be seeing new demos and a first look at RT on radeon gpus
Yes, high pixel fillrate allows the machine to push more pixels, but bandwidth is also very important in that regard. So even though the Pro had a better pixel fillrate than the X, because of its' very low memory bandwidth, you saw games like RDR2 running at 100% higher resolution on the X even though the power difference between them was just 40% and the Pro had a better pixel fillrate. It doesn't matter how powerful your water pump is if your water pipe isn't wide enough.If I am not mistaken the fillrate of the Ps4 Pro was even greater than that of the One X (64Rops 911mhz vs 32Rops 1172Mhz) but in the end the One X performed way better (I believe it was due to the higher bandwith)
52 CUs x 64 shaders per CU x 2 GHz x 2 instructions per clock = 13,312 gigaflops == 13.312 TF
I think I asked this elsewhere, but is the idea that MS is letting the One still play ball with new games an issue for anyone after this reveal? Like, are you worried about the first round of games being held back anymore?
Same. I think it's also why I find it pretty exciting that the games we are used to playing now, for the most part, will just carry over. If you don't like the first round of new offerings, play the stuff you know. maybe even with benefits here and there.I'm not too concerned myself, mostly because I have fairly low expectations of the first round of games on any new hardware. They're usually held back by a lack of experience building on the new hardware, so I'm not feeling like I'll miss out on much.
Does the Pro's pixel fillrate explain why a lot of games have better framerates on Pro vs One X?Yes, high pixel fillrate allows the machine to push more pixels, but bandwidth is also very important in that regard. So even though the Pro had a better pixel fillrate than the X, because of its' very low memory bandwidth, you saw games like RDR2 running at 100% higher resolution on the X even though the power difference between them was just 40% and the Pro had a better pixel fillrate. It doesn't matter how powerful your water pump is if your water pipe isn't wide enough.
Does the Pro's pixel fillrate explain why a lot of games have better framerates on Pro vs One X?
LOL
It's usually because the X version aims higher in terms of resolution/power ratio. It's like if a game will target 1080p on Lockheart, it might perform better than the XSX native 4K version because the resolution difference is X4 while the power difference is X3.Does the Pro's pixel fillrate explain why a lot of games have better framerates on Pro vs One X?
As textures have ballooned in size to match 4K displays, efficiency in memory utilisation has got progressively worse - something Microsoft was able to confirm by building in special monitoring hardware into Xbox One X's Scorpio Engine SoC. "From this, we found a game typically accessed at best only one-half to one-third of their allocated pages over long windows of time," says Goossen. "So if a game never had to load pages that are ultimately never actually used, that means a 2-3x multiplier on the effective amount of physical memory, and a 2-3x multiplier on our effective IO performance."
looks like we'll be getting a demonstration of ray tracing on RDNA2 tomorrow
DirectX Developer Day Schedule - DirectX Developer Blog
Tomorrow (3/19) is DirectX Developer Day! Join the Microsoft DirectX team, along with partners AMD and NVIDIA, for a series of talks and demos covering the future of gaming graphics: The New Features and Unprecedented Opportunities of DirectX 12 – Jianye Lu The New Standard for Next Gen Games –devblogs.microsoft.com
It was due to realizing more of its fillrate per frameIf I am not mistaken the fillrate of the Ps4 Pro was even greater than that of the One X (64Rops 911mhz vs 32Rops 1172Mhz) but in the end the One X performed way better (I believe it was due to the higher bandwith)
If I am not mistaken the fillrate of the Ps4 Pro was even greater than that of the One X (64Rops 911mhz vs 32Rops 1172Mhz) but in the end the One X performed way better (I believe it was due to the higher bandwith)
Are you counting all levels of RDNA cache? It looks like you aren't including L2 and L1 cache for Zen.I'm trying to figure out something maybe someone can help. The 76mb of SOC cache listed for series X, how would that be allocated? Going by what we know about RDNA and the Xbox audio block I don't see how those could be using more than ~12Mb of cache combined. What is using the rest of the cache? Assuming they are using the full-fat Zen 2 cache that leaves 32mb of unaccounted for. What am I missing?
Yeah. There is still a lot not yet known about the specs of these systems. Maybe a SIGGRAPH presentation or a dev doc leak.Are you counting all levels of RDNA cache? It looks like you aren't including L2 and L1 cache for Zen.
It's possible there's on-die SRAM for the memory interface, like Sony's SSD interface.
I forgot about the L2 cache, but there is still stuff missing.Are you counting all levels of RDNA cache? It looks like you aren't including L2 and L1 cache for Zen.
It's possible there's on-die SRAM for the memory interface, like Sony's SSD interface.
Why are you referencing Vega? Navi white paper has cache values in it.I forgot about the L2 cache, but there is still stuff missing.
My estimates:
3.25mb L1cache (64kb per CU 4x vega 56)
8mb L2 cache for GPU (2x vega 56)
672kb for the audio block (4x xb1)
256kb for CPU L1 (32 kb per core)
4mb for CPU L2 ( 256 kb per core)
32mb for CPU L3 (shared)
That leaves 27.85 unaccounted for. Mem cache?
They're the same. PS5 has proportionally less because it has less TMUs.Guys what's the current understanding on Ray Tracing capability for these devices? They way I understand XSX setup is they can achieve upto 13 TF worth of RT in parallel to the GPU workload. But the PS5 setup confused me during the presentation?
Xbox One got a 6.6% boost three months before launch, from 800Mhz to 853Mhz.
2.5GB for the OS, 13.5GB for games.
448Gb/s x1,25 = 560
9,2 TF x1,3 = 11,96TF
So yes I guess the XSX will be more power full in fact for 3rd party games. No matter the SSD speed
Possibly running at 56/56 CU as GitHub data suggested.Yes. It was very quiet running games and demos.
The dev kit was quite a bit louder, curiously enough, as it has more of the Xbox One X form factor without the more advanced cooling system I suppose.
Ah yes, that's right. I think they did say just that - the devkits have 56 active CUs. The retail systems have four disabled to improve yields, I believe.