HoloDust said:
JEMC said:
The main problem with it being 14nm is that AMD only produces the Jaguar cores in the 28nm process, and I doubt they're willing to bring Jaguar to 14nm having Puma around. And they can't use both processes together with one APU.
That said, the fastest Jaguar processor was the 2.05GHz Athlon 5350. Has AMD made a faster version of the CPU? Is the leak incorrect and Neo uses Puma cores? And if the leak is incorrect in that part, what else can be wrong/false?
|
I don't know, even if it's not 36CUs, but rather something like 380X/M395X, unless they are designing PS4K to be more like PS3, I'm not sure they could cram so much CUs into such a small space and TDP on 28nm...but I guess we'll just have to wait a bit longer, they don't hide their specs.
|
There is tons of free capacity on 28nm at the moment as most semiconductor companies (Intel, Samsung, Qualcom, nVidia and more!) have shifted to lower feature sizes, so building large 28nm chips with lower yields has become a little more feasible as a fab not producing chips is a fab not bringing in revenue, especially as many won't be retooled to something smaller for a year or two yet.
And with 28nm being as old as it is... It's extremely mature.
I would assume some of the chips that don't meet the voltage and clock specs might end up as die-harvested parts and end up in the regular PS4.
sc94597 said:
Sorry guys, having a boosted (clock-wise) CPU and GPU is not enough to warrant calling the thing a "separate platform to develop for." All of the architectural quirks remain the same.
|
Not exactly. It just took on some new qwerks.
For instance... Whilst the CU's have doubled, everything else hasn't... Suddenly the system just gained a bunch of new bottlenecks that are different or more pronounced from the original machine.
sc94597 said:
Pemalite said:
Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 need roughly similar hardware to be Emulated on the PC.
Now if the Xbox One can emulate the Xbox 360................................................. You do the math.
|
This is faulty logic. Firstly, the Xbox 360 and PS3 emulators are not fully developed nor near-fully accurate.
We have no idea what new hardware specifications (if any) it takes to do that. Secondly, the CPU bottleneck on PC doesn't exist as it does with consoles. If we used CPU's as weak as the Jaguar line to emulate 360 and PS3 games we might notice performance variations between the two emulators, in fact I would be very surprised if they didn't exist considering the uniqueness of the cell vs. the pretty standard PPC in the 360. When you have highly clocked i5's and i7's running these games the bottlenecks dissapear as they can brute force their way through emulation of the key features of the cell. I would also like to note that until the emulator developers decided to use DX12, the PS3 emulator was lagging behind the 360 emulator in performance. Now it is ahead of the curve. Sony doesn't have an API (out of lack of necessity) that is meant for translating between architectures in a general level like this.
Those are just few reasons why we can't use this logic. There probably are more reasons that I haven't thought of. Having said that, I wouldn't say that PS3 emulation on PS4 is impossible, just a lot more work for what might not be so great results. I don't see Sony taking the risk unless they are sure they'll be able to make a good emulator.
|
1) You don't need it to be fully accurate. "Good enough" suffices.
2) You are assuming that Emulating a console game on a PC is exactly the same as how a console would emulate a console game, ignoring the fact that Microsoft/Sony has intimite knowledge of the OS, Drivers, API's, Hardware and other nuances that emulator devs don't have access too, they have to guess and reverse engineer everything.
3) Sony does have an API. It's called Vulkan. - The Xbox One and Playstation 4 also have low level API's that are Faster than Direct X 12 and Vulkan, but are more difficult to program for.
4) Xbox One is proof in the pudding.
CosmicSex said:
Guys, hold up one second:
| GPU |
AMD GCN, 18 CUs at 800 MHz |
Improved AMD GCN, 36 CUs at 911 MHz |
This can't be right. This unit would be extrodinarly more powerful than the PS4
If my calculations are correct, this rumor calls for a system outputing 4.2Tflops compared to 1.84 in the PS4
I really have doubts about this.
Can someone tell me if the what the actual a system memory bandwidth of 218Gb/s would even be enough to feed this GPU?
|
Unfortunately the rest of the system hasn't caught up, so you will likely have a bandwidth and CPU bottleneck.
The GPU is also 4.19 Teraflops. ;P
As for Bandwidth... It's not enough for 4k. It might not even be enough for Quad-High Definition, but it is more than enough for 1080P.
HoloDust said:
Hm, I'm wondering what that GPU is, if that rumour is true...
PS4's GPU is either downclocked 7870 (Pitcairn) with 2CUs disabled, plus some additional circuitry from Hawaii, or it's downclocked 290 (Hawaii Pro) cut in half with 2CUs disabled.
So, this would be something like downclocked 290/390 with 4CUs disabled...or maybe it's Polaris based, which I doubt, but in any case I guess it needs to be on 14nm, 28nm would be too power hungry.
|
The PS4's GPU is close to a Radeon 7850.
This would put it near the Radeon 7970... At-least in terms of CU's.
We have no idea if it's using GCN 1.3 with it's colour compression or not, how many Texture Mapping Units or Render Output Pipelines or even if they bolstered the geometry units.
Way to many unknowns.
28nm is perfectly feasible, they will likely be aggressive with the voltages.
As a fabrication process matures you can tweak things for lower power consumption and more performance.
Turkish said:
4TFlop GPU but only a 500Mhz upclock to the CPU? That doesn't sound right. That's not gonna give 60fps to some 30fps some games.
What this does is make those dipping 30fps games a solid 30fps and the 60fps games a solid 60fps. |
It's not meant to "Upgrade" the current games, that would require patching to the current software.
If a game is compute bound on the GPU, then it will be linear increase in performance, if it is CPU or bandwidth bound, then the difference isn't going to be as nearly as pronounced.
potato_hamster said:
Console video game development is not a matter of tweaking sliders. Engines are not designed to support this new specification. It's actually a whole pile of extra work, and literally double the QA cost when there is literally zero expectation for increased sales. None.
Video game developers get nothing out of supporting a higher-spec console except lower profits.
|
The game engines already support the hardware.
It is literally a matter of tweaking sliders as API's, drivers, OS everything else will remain the same.
If anything Multiplatforms will be closer to the PC now in regards to graphics as most PS4 games were only high-graphics compared to the PC's Ultra.
JEMC said:
The main problem with it being 14nm is that AMD only produces the Jaguar cores in the 28nm process, and I doubt they're willing to bring Jaguar to 14nm having Puma around. And they can't use both processes together with one APU.
That said, the fastest Jaguar processor was the 2.05GHz Athlon 5350. Has AMD made a faster version of the CPU? Is the leak incorrect and Neo uses Puma cores? And if the leak is incorrect in that part, what else can be wrong/false?
|
Puma is just an evolutionary upgrade over Jaguar it's not a stark difference, it's the same Micro-architecture, pretty sure they all have the same extensions and instructions.
Jaguar could also run at faster than 2ghz, but because the transisters used are targeting a frequency lower than that... Expect power consumption to get out of control if you go beyond that.
walsufnir said:
Guy with the mononoke avatar, post if you're ok ☺
Well, the classic console cycle is over. MS will follow news wise (they are most probably already developing a new iteration), Sony is officially doing it and nobody knows what Nintendo is going to do. |
Only if it's a success will Microsft follow. :P
Next gen is probably 3~ years away now.
