By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - John Kodera: “PS4 Is Entering The Final Stages Of It’s Life-Cycle.”

Pemalite said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's always a bulk process, not a HPP (High Power Plus) process as needed for PCs, Consoles and servers. Bulk processes are ready earlier because they are less complex but in return also much less powerful. For High Power processes server chips or High-End GPU are generally the way to go. Hence why the x86 and GPU production at TSMC is coming later: Their High Power Process is not yet in production, only their Bulk processes.

Hence my point. ;)

I can see your point, just pointing out that chips in those processes are no good in a console. The processes needed for that are not yet in production or just in risk production.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Edit: The problem with not building monolithic is small with CPU (mainly just higher latency), but not nearly so easy to solve in GPU. Navi is potentially (and hopefully) coming with a solution to this problem, otherwise it will need a pretty big GPU - bigger in square mm than PS4 Pro by around 50% even though produced in a 7nm process just to get a chip powerful enough to get enough distance between itself and the Pro. This would not only be pretty expensive for a console chip due to it's size, but also a pretty large heat producer

 

GCN can scale upwards and downwards.

At the moment AMD has a max hard limit of 64CU's in the GCN layout, so I would assume Navi wouldn't push past that.

If all other things are equal, we may just get a moderate transistor increase over Vega rather than anything overtly dramatic... And that should mean it would be a more conservative size than Vega when built at the pseudo-7nm verses 14nm process.

Next Gen though is when all the gloves come off and we may see a deviation from GCN and all the rubbish holding the uArch back.

With that in mind...Sony and Microsoft may decide not to opt for a 64CU part anyway and go with something more conservative again (Remember, consoles cannot afford high-end hardware!) and thus drive up the clock rates instead to make up the difference, Microsoft did go in that direction with the Xbox One X.

Well, the problem with that would be that they wouldn't be much stronger than Pro and especially One X if they would choose less than 64 CU, meaning not much of an incentive to upgrade



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Well, the problem with that would be that they wouldn't be much stronger than Pro and especially One X if they would choose less than 64 CU, meaning not much of an incentive to upgrade

False.
There is more to a GPU's capabilities than the amount of CU's.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Finally its hitting its strides hope to see ps5 soon



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

Pemalite said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Well, the problem with that would be that they wouldn't be much stronger than Pro and especially One X if they would choose less than 64 CU, meaning not much of an incentive to upgrade

False.
There is more to a GPU's capabilities than the amount of CU's.

True, but it's still the biggest contributor to the performance



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Pemalite said:

False.
There is more to a GPU's capabilities than the amount of CU's.

True, but it's still the biggest contributor to the performance

Not really.
You could have 64CU's @ 300mhz.
Or you could have 32CU's @ 600mhz.

They hypothetically would have the same output.
...But that also ignores things like memory buses, caches, various fixed function pipelines and so on.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

True, but it's still the biggest contributor to the performance

Not really.
You could have 64CU's @ 300mhz.
Or you could have 32CU's @ 600mhz.

They hypothetically would have the same output.
...But that also ignores things like memory buses, caches, various fixed function pipelines and so on.

As if you weren't aware that GPU get clocked down to fit into the tight power consumption maximals of a console. Don't expect the PS5 to come with less than 56 CU, but higher clock speeds instead. That won't work out unless Navi base clock is above 1800Mhz, which I very much doubt.

To get enough distance between themselves and the One X (40 CU @1172Mhz), 56 CU will already have to come with about 1500Mhz. That's already close to max clock rate for Vega and in 14nm definitely too much power consumption and heat for a console. In 7nm this should be much more feasible but will still draw a lot of power.

@bolded: Those are part of the Compute Units (unless you meant CPU Cache too)



Bofferbrauer2 said:

As if you weren't aware that GPU get clocked down to fit into the tight power consumption maximals of a console. Don't expect the PS5 to come with less than 56 CU, but higher clock speeds instead.

Uh. What? It's a balancing act. So yes I am aware.
Increasing the size of the chip by adding more CU's directly increases power consumption as every single transistor you add requires energy.

There is a reason why nVidia with Pascal decided not to blow out transistor counts and instead focused on driving the clockrates of it's chips up.
It was what offered the best performance/power consumption for a given chip size.

At 7nm (I hate using that term, because it's not a real 7nm process) you can use the extra TDP to drive up clock rates. (Provided you have the appropriate layout, transistor types etc'.)

Bofferbrauer2 said:

That won't work out unless Navi base clock is above 1800Mhz, which I very much doubt.

Why not?

There are Pascal chips that boost to 2ghz at 14nm. And that is before overclocking.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

To get enough distance between themselves and the One X (40 CU @1172Mhz), 56 CU will already have to come with about 1500Mhz. That's already close to max clock rate for Vega and in 14nm definitely too much power consumption and heat for a console. In 7nm this should be much more feasible but will still draw a lot of power.

The Xbox One X is using an older Polaris derived part.
As someone who has a Polaris GPU and the Xbox One X I can assure you they are both inefficient, slow, mid-range hardware.

I mean shit... Neither have draw stream rasterization, primitive shaders or rapid packed math... Graphics Core Next in the console is simply slow, old and inefficient, The Xbox One X is no exception. - It is not overtly difficult to make big performance gains.
Heck AMD haven't even enabled draw stream rasterization in it's drivers and relegated primitive shaders for something for developers to opt-into via an API with Vega, those are efficiency gains going to waste.

Fact is... 64 CU's are enough for next gen, with ample clock rate and architectural refinement.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

@bolded: Those are part of the Compute Units (unless you meant CPU Cache too)

False.
I suggest you look at this layout.






--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

True, but it's still the biggest contributor to the performance

Not really.
You could have 64CU's @ 300mhz.
Or you could have 32CU's @ 600mhz.

They hypothetically would have the same output.
...But that also ignores things like memory buses, caches, various fixed function pipelines and so on.

Isn't the case that more CU would give you more connections and thusfore more bandwidth?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Going back to what was talked about earlier, I don't think the PS5 will wait until 2020 or 2021. You have this E3 that is only focusing on titles we already know about, Sony predicting a 3 million decline in shipments bring annual shipments closer to the system's weaker years and the fact that you still have competition from Switch which, despite weaker sales in April, is still the top selling system in Japan as well as a good economy (also not a bad idea to launch before an election which could change the business landscape if Trump doesn't win).

The 2021 date I don't see. Maybe Spring 2020 but I don't see it being later than that.I could see Sony supporting it for three more years but not as the main console.



Visit my site for more

Known as Smashchu in a former life

VideoGameAccountant said:
Going back to what was talked about earlier, I don't think the PS5 will wait until 2020 or 2021. You have this E3 that is only focusing on titles we already know about, ...

We don't know yet which games Sony will announce this E3 for PS4, do we?

Also their last years focus were mostly games within the next 12 months: Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, Horizon Zero Dawn DLC, Knack 2, Monster Hunter World, Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite, Shadow of the Colossus, CoD: WWII, Destiny 2, God of War, Detroit: Become Human, Spider-Man, Moss, Skyrim for PSVR. The only(?)  outlier was Days Gone.