Quantcast
PS5: Leaked Design And Technology [RUMOUR]

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5: Leaked Design And Technology [RUMOUR]

Conina said:
Areaz32 said:

There is a reason why Quantum Break ran so poorly on PC, and that is because its engine was initially programmed to be highly optimized for the Xbox One hardware, and then the PC, in turn, had to run it in a very inefficient way.

Quantum Break runs poorly on PCs?

You probably refer to benchmarks in Ultra setting or above in native resolution without the "temporal reconstruction" performance cheats.

If you choose similar settings to the Xbox One version or the Xbox One X version, the PC version delivers similar or even better performance.

My first playthrough was the 30fps-locked Xbox version. After playing it through again on PC I can't go back to the 30 fps.

I am talking about the problems with the PC version upon launch. 



Around the Network
Kristof81 said:
I thought that DLSS is nVidia exclusive tech.

And it is as I pointed out earlier in the thread, but no one seems to pay attention to the many arguments against why this leak is fake.



Areaz32 said:
Conina said:

Quantum Break runs poorly on PCs?

You probably refer to benchmarks in Ultra setting or above in native resolution without the "temporal reconstruction" performance cheats.

If you choose similar settings to the Xbox One version or the Xbox One X version, the PC version delivers similar or even better performance.

My first playthrough was the 30fps-locked Xbox version. After playing it through again on PC I can't go back to the 30 fps.

I am talking about the problems with the PC version upon launch. 

... which had nothing to do with the Xbox One optimization. And don't we forget theproblems of the Xbox One X version:


View on YouTube

Were all these graphical glitches fixed?



Areaz32 said:
Pemalite said:

You don't need to?

Yes, you do if you want that same optimization potential.

Except all the optimization in the world hasn't done wonders for the Xbox One or Playstation 4. - Those consoles still cannot guarantee 1080P, 60fps with anything more than medium quality settings.

Areaz32 said:

The PS4 SOC IS punching above its weight significantly from comparable PC hardware. It is why most 3rd party devs aren't able to make a game that looks better than the first party games on the same system and even better on PC.

They are only able to make the game runs kinda bad on PS4 (in comparison to first-party titles) and then really well on PC. And that is because they have invested on a graphics architecture that has to just work reasonably well on a console while also working reasonably well on PC, and that results in PC always being better under those circumstances.

There is a reason why Quantum Break ran so poorly on PC, and that is because its engine was initially programmed to be highly optimized for the Xbox One hardware, and then the PC, in turn, had to run it in a very inefficient way.

The Playstation 4 SoC is doing absolutely nothing that I wouldn't expect out of a Radeon 7870. So... It's not punching above it's weight.

Areaz32 said:

There is a reason why Quantum Break ran so poorly on PC, and that is because its engine was initially programmed to be highly optimized for the Xbox One hardware, and then the PC, in turn, had to run it in a very inefficient way.

That is a bit of a fallacy that you assume just because one game runs poorly on one platform... That it must be highly optimized for another.

Here is the kicker... The majority of ports to Windows Store tend to be terribly bad.
Quantum Break however runs perfectly fine on my PC... And actually ran like Garbage on my Xbox One X months ago.


Areaz32 said:

I don't think you understand. It is the reality of the Windows OS and their graphics API's that are in the way of letting PC's utilize APU's the same way the console (not sure about Xbox's because they recently mandated all games be made for PC as well) API's make it possible. It is a question of design not processing power. If graphics engineers are able to pull off a certain feature for their engine by utilizing the highly unified structure of the console hardware, then they wouldn't be able to get the same performance on the equivalent PC hardware. Some features done in console games are simply not as efficient on PCs.

No. I don't think you understand.
The Xbox One is using a Monolithic OS that is derived from the Windows 10 Kernel. - It then has high level API's like Direct X 11 and 12 just like the PC.
It also has low-level API's for developers that wish to leverage those.
It's also running multiple Operating Systems in tandem... And gobbling up more Ram than a desktop OS.

It is also leveraging x86 PC hardware... And you somehow came to the conclusion it's a more lean implementation than what the PC offers? Common.

From a hardware perspective... There is not a single graphics feature that is done on the old and outdated console Graphics Core Next hardware that cannot be done on PC. None at all.
And all the talk of Unified memory, large ACE counts and all the other bells and whistles that have been championed from the last 5 years? Where is the advantage it is has provided over the PC? It just  hasn't materialized.

 



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

Conina said:
Areaz32 said:

I am talking about the problems with the PC version upon launch. 

... which had nothing to do with the Xbox One optimization. 

Why not? You didn't provide a different reason. Go on...

Pemalite said:
Areaz32 said:

Yes, you do if you want that same optimization potential.

Except all the optimization in the world hasn't done wonders for the Xbox One or Playstation 4. - Those consoles still cannot guarantee 1080P, 60fps with anything more than medium quality settings.

The Playstation 4 SoC is doing absolutely nothing that I wouldn't expect out of a Radeon 7870. So... It's not punching above it's weight.

The first party games clearly look better than the third party games on PS4. 60fps is a CPU problem, not a GPU problem. Also, I am pretty certain that no one expected PS4 to do TLOU2 graphics back in 2012 when they released the 7870. 

Areaz32 said:

There is a reason why Quantum Break ran so poorly on PC, and that is because its engine was initially programmed to be highly optimized for the Xbox One hardware, and then the PC, in turn, had to run it in a very inefficient way.

That is a bit of a fallacy that you assume just because one game runs poorly on one platform... That it must be highly optimized for another.

Here is the kicker... The majority of ports to Windows Store tend to be terribly bad.
Quantum Break however runs perfectly fine on my PC... And actually ran like Garbage on my Xbox One X months ago.

It isn't a conclusion I made through any fallacy. It is an educated suggestion as to how and why it happened. If you were to tell me that Remedy devs are incompetent on the tech side, I would call you a liar. This is the only way to explain why the PC version ran so poorly. The would clearly have fixed it given enough time, as they also did with a lot of the issues afterwards. Most windows store games were planned to be Xbox one only for a long time until Microsoft changed their tune.

Areaz32 said: 

I don't think you understand. It is the reality of the Windows OS and their graphics API's that are in the way of letting PC's utilize APU's the same way the console (not sure about Xbox's because they recently mandated all games be made for PC as well) API's make it possible. It is a question of design not processing power. If graphics engineers are able to pull off a certain feature for their engine by utilizing the highly unified structure of the console hardware, then they wouldn't be able to get the same performance on the equivalent PC hardware. Some features done in console games are simply not as efficient on PCs.

No. I don't think you understand.
The Xbox One is using a Monolithic OS that is derived from the Windows 10 Kernel. - It then has high level API's like Direct X 11 and 12 just like the PC.
It also has low-level API's for developers that wish to leverage those.
It's also running multiple Operating Systems in tandem... And gobbling up more Ram than a desktop OS.

Yep, it has a low-level API for developers that wish to leverage that level of control, but the problem comes in when you want to port it to the PC platform because then you can't directly port it without significant performance pitfalls. Simply put, some of the hardware intricacies of the xbox and playstation aren't available on ALL PC hardware (keyword here is "intricacies") so sometimes you can't rely on async compute or some specific number of scheduled wavefronts in your PC games, simply because you never know if it actually has all those ACE units, ROPs or ALU's or whatever.

Elaborate on "gobbling up more Ram than a desktop OS"  Most desktop OS's eat up more ram depending on how much ram it has. For instance, I am running 32gb ddr4 and it eats more than 10 gigs on caching etc. It will free that ram up if i actually start using it in a game, or some other application, but there you have it.

It is also leveraging x86 PC hardware... And you somehow came to the conclusion it's a more lean implementation than what the PC offers? Common.

From a hardware perspective... There is not a single graphics feature that is done on the old and outdated console Graphics Core Next hardware that cannot be done on PC. None at all.
And all the talk of Unified memory, large ACE counts and all the other bells and whistles that have been championed from the last 5 years? Where is the advantage it is has provided over the PC? It just hasn't materialized.

Elaborate on what you mean when you say "more lean". I didn't imply that it is automatically better than what PC offers. What I am arguing is that utilizing different specific hardware in a specialized way is preferred over using random hardware, as random hardware would have to brute-force a ton of random stuff just to get the same result.

As an example, emulators are extremely inefficient. It is a similar principle. The emulation overhead itself can be lightweight but when it comes to executing the code that was built for specific hardware, then it becomes way slow. A laptop I had from 2013 buckled hard in the attempt to render some enemies with a special specular mapping in the later stages of Persona 4 for instance. It dropped to under 10fps and it was a laptop with two GT 650m SLI and an i7. Granted these specs aren't anything special today, but it would still amount to several times the power of a PS2.

I wasn't arguing that PC as a whole cannot achieve these features. I am just saying that developers cannot use these features on PC in any significant way, because they never know if the end user even HAS IT.

The advantages have mostly shown itself in the first party space. Media Molecules game, for instance, has completely done away with the rasterization hardware (ROPs) and they are using a cutting-edge SDF solution for their graphics. If they didn't have those ACE units they would never have been able to go with this SDF solution. The Tomorrow Children is also a game that uses cascaded voxel cone tracing. No one else was doing that back in 2014. Here is a GDC PDF from early 2015  

The take away here is that, if this game was multiplat, it would most definitely mean that they would be forced to use more traditional technology. Unless they only want to target that very narrow segment of the PC market that had GPU's with those exact features.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:

It's not so much that I think it can't hit 1500MHz, I just find it hard to believe it's going to do so, with a high CU count, at around 10TF, in a PS4 sized console. Maybe it will, and if it does, that'll be something to boast about, if the cooling system is remarkably quieter this time around that is.

Really not that hard to imagine that they could since they have a new GPU microachitecture in hand and have 7nm to work with ... 



Intrinsic said: 
EricHiggin said: 

That's another reason why I think it's not Zen 2. I would say as low as 8TF and as high as 12TF, if it's going to launch around late 2019. I myself however assume 10 since it seems to be the middle ground. I would much rather have a beefier CPU portion than GPU if it requires meeting a certain price point. Slightly better PS4/Pro graphics are fine as long as they lock it at 60FPS when devs want more than 30.

I believe it will be alot more than 10TF. I have my money on at least 14TF. When sony went from 28nm to 16nm, not only did their CU count double the GPU clock went up by around 15% from the base console. The XB1x (getting rid of their esram on SOC had more room to work with and of course usng a better cooling solution, they practically quadripled the amount of CUs in their GPU and ran it at an even higher clock. 

As cool as that sounds, the XB1x GPU has only 4 CUs more than the PS4pro but is just clocked much higher. So if you use the XB1X as the baseline, simply going from 14nm to 7nm and keeping the clocks the same will at the very least mean you are by default going from 6TF to 12TF and this is not considerring any other architectural improvements made. 

14TF in 2019 seems like to big of a jump for a console that should sell for around $449 give or take. I could see 14TF if they skimp on the CPU again, but I can't see them going 30FPS for PS5, and I can't imagine they would risk later gen games not being able to hold close to 60, especially with possible large frame drops by then. Making the CPU plenty strong, and making the GPU just good enough, makes more sense to me. 6 or 8 strong acceptably clocked Ryzen cores, with around a 10TF GPU would be good enough for the initial launch model, assuming they plan on making a Pro version again mid gen.

XB1X has 6.0TF and can run some games in full 4k. Cerny said they feel they need at least 8.0TF for proper 4k. AMD themselves said something like 7.5TF I think. If PS5 has 10TF, that will be enough that they shouldn't have to worry about checkerboarding until later in the gen, which will be good enough if you only spent $399 in 2019, and can upgrade to Pro in say 2022.

Intrinsic said: 
EricHiggin said: 

If PS5 uses 7nm at launch, they have to hope that 5nm isn't more than 3 or 4 years afterwards for a slim or upgrade though. Intel still stuck on 14nm makes me wonder. Pro and slim got 16nm chips fairly early, but those were from TSMC. AMD was using GloFo and 14nm. Mind you, AMD is now going to use TSMC for the majority if not all Zen 2, 7nm chips, so it's hard to say, depending on if PS5 uses Ryzen, +, or Zen 2.

No they don't. If 4nm doesn't come along soonish its not thje end of the world. And there are other ways or things that contribute to price reductions than just using a smaller chip.

It's not the end of the world, but when you have always made a slim console, usually 3 to 4 years in, going without one, or a poor attempt because you can't shrink the power and cooling system, will be a downer. If PS was worried about this, I wouldn't be surprised to see them use 10nm at launch, and then 5nm if it's ready for slim, and if not then 7nm.

EricHiggin said: 

M.2 might make sense based on the leak info. You could have a 2TB HDD model, and a 1TB M.2 model, and let the customer choose if they would rather have more storage or more speed. The customers who buy the 1TB model could then simply spend another $50 to $100 on a 4TB+ external HDD if they want more space for cheap. They could probably also spend more and get a 2TB to 4TB (or larger in the future) 2.5" internal HDD to keep things sleek and simple. Whoever buys the 2TB HDD model, may even be able to wait a year or two for M.2 prices to go down, while storage goes up, and install one themselves for more speed.

That is unnecesary. First thing here is the chosen interface. SATA or M.2? 

SATA will mean the best they could ever get will be around 400MB/s. And thats if they put in a SATA SSD in the console. SATA 3 is raed for 600MB/s but thats not areal world number per say. Anif they are gonn put in a SATA SSD from launch then they might as well just go with M.2.

M.2 wll mean the best they could get is around 2GB/S+ speeds. But it also mean they could use a SATA based M.2 ssd in there allowing those that want to go faster (going from aropund 400MB/s sata to around 1.8GB/s nvme) upgrade their drive.

They honestly don't hve to put in a HDD bigger than 1TB in the console. All they have to do is spport external HDDs from day one. Its just all round better for the platform as far as future proofing goes if they go with an M.2 drive. Honestly and this may sound crazy, I can even see them soldering their storage directly onto the PCB and just support external storage on day one. 

1TB pcie 3 based nand flash storage soldered onto the PCB. Will make it eve cheaer for them to do it.

The future proofing and cost savings make sense on one hand, but no internal upgrading is going to be a massive step for PS. I know personally, I'd rather pay a little more to have the ability to swap internal storage. External mass storage isn't exactly a deal breaker, but I would much rather have internal. Even if the slot was just empty internal space for additional 2.5" storage.

fatslob-:O said:

EricHiggin said: 

It's not so much that I think it can't hit 1500MHz, I just find it hard to believe it's going to do so, with a high CU count, at around 10TF, in a PS4 sized console. Maybe it will, and if it does, that'll be something to boast about, if the cooling system is remarkably quieter this time around that is.

Really not that hard to imagine that they could since they have a new GPU microachitecture in hand and have 7nm to work with ... 

That's assuming it will definitely be on 7nm, and also assuming PS would rather focus on the absolute highest performance possible, without taking the console design and cost into account. PS4 could have squeezed out more performance if they would have made the shell, PSU, and cooling system larger, but they decided to go straight to 'slim' at launch and have the console sound like a runway sometimes.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

That's assuming it will definitely be on 7nm, and also assuming PS would rather focus on the absolute highest performance possible, without taking the console design and cost into account. PS4 could have squeezed out more performance if they would have made the shell, PSU, and cooling system larger, but they decided to go straight to 'slim' at launch and have the console sound like a runway sometimes.

In all honesty it probably will be on 7nm and with the whole logic foundry industry transitioning to EUV lithography which makes it even more likely since there will be some long term cost saving to be had ... 



fatslob-:O said:
EricHiggin said:

That's assuming it will definitely be on 7nm, and also assuming PS would rather focus on the absolute highest performance possible, without taking the console design and cost into account. PS4 could have squeezed out more performance if they would have made the shell, PSU, and cooling system larger, but they decided to go straight to 'slim' at launch and have the console sound like a runway sometimes.

In all honesty it probably will be on 7nm and with the whole logic foundry industry transitioning to EUV lithography which makes it even more likely since there will be some long term cost saving to be had ... 

TSMC 7nm isn't EUV at the moment though is it? I thought they were going to transition to 7nm EUV or make that transition at 5nm otherwise.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

TSMC 7nm isn't EUV at the moment though is it? I thought they were going to transition to 7nm EUV or make that transition at 5nm otherwise.

Their transitioning to EUV next year with their upgraded 7nm logic node which will be known as 7nm+ and it would coincide with the potential release of a new systems during the last quarter of the year ... 

Heck, Samsung is already there with EUV and products launching early next year based on it ...