Intrinsic said:
EricHiggin said:
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.
|
You are looking at it all wrong.
Look at it this way. lets look at what we know.
Going from 28nm to 16/14 nm sony were able to double the size of their GPU and up it cock by over 10%. Now if we ignore any architectural advancements and just half the fab process again (so similar sized SOC {sightly saller in truth} and twice thenumber of transistors) that means the PS5 will have at the very least 72CUs. And if taking apage from the XB1X, 80CUs. At the very least. And if downcocking the GPU too (like they have always done) but alo running at a higher clock tha what we have in the XB1X ten you are looking at a 80CU GPU running at around 1300Mhz (up about 10% from the XB1X GPU clock).
That right there is already putting you at over 14TF. And all this is if we are basing it off the current console GPU architecture which we shouldn't because navi willl be more efficient than polaris.
As for the CPU, if this gen has thought them anything its that they don't need the worlds strongest CPU. All they need is a better CPU than Jaguar and jaguar is a very very very low bar to scale. They could easily throw in a Ryzen 2 based 6 core 12 thread CPU in that SOC and it will be over 5 times more powerful than jaguar. While running at a clock of around 2.5Ghz to 3GHz.
And lastly, lets talk about good enough. Whatever the come out the gate with sets the tone for the next 7-8 years. They Pro version isnt a target its just a bonus.
|
What about before the PS3 to PS4 transition? What about PS2 to PS3 or PS1 to PS2? Could PS4 have been more powerful? Could they have launched at a $499 price point? Could PS4 have been given a larger case and better cooling? Were PS and MS begging AMD to find time to work with them and not price gouge them? It's not as simple as what can be done in terms of just hardware.
Intrinsic said:
EricHiggin said:
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.
|
No. If you take a "PS4" game (1.8TF GPU) then yes you will need around 8TF (in truth probably a little less cause not everything in the render pipeline scales up with resolution). But a PS5 game will be very different from a PS4 game. Geomtry will be more complex, shaders will be more complex, sadows, lighting........ everything. hats wht makes it "next gen".
To put his into context. The PS4 GPU was over 9 times more powerful than that PS3 GPU from a flops perspective. Yet it still runs gaes at 30fps and 1080p. But its 1080p/30fps looks a lot better than 1080p/30fps on the PS3.
|
With Nvidia and their RTX line, what are the odds AMD has no idea that was in the works, and isn't aiming for something similar? Didn't Cerny mention ray tracing being the holy grail or something like that? What if they try to partially implement that and use a fair amount of resources to push that, instead of everything else they could? Would that also fit under next gen? We all know they like their buzz words. 4k, HDR, so why not ray tracing?
Another question would be how much more powerful than 4.2TF or 6TF is really needed to make a worthwhile jump, in comparison to previous gens? If 4.2TF was worthwhile after just 3 years, why assume they would jump to 14TF after another 3? 10TF would be another 2.3X jump.
Intrinsic said:
| EricHiggin said:
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.
|
There areother ways to cut the cost of building the console besidesjut shrinking the SOC. And again, sony or MS wouldn,t make a console today with the primary driver of being able to srink it in 3 years time because tradition...... They would always make the best console they can make a the price point they are trying to hit. Or at times even make a better console than the price they are selling it for and bite a loss on each unit sold. They wouldn't use 10nm or 12nm if 7nm chips are available. They pay by the wafer. It literally costs them less using a smller node so why would they pay more for a lrger node? So they can get to py less 3 years later instead?
The only reason sony would go for a 12nm or 14nm chip is if for some reason even after 18 months of making them the yeilds on the 7nm chips are so low that it is actually cheaper to go with a more mature fabrication process. Because remember they pay by the wafer. If they can only get 30 working chips from a 100 chip wafer then they are better off going witha more mature node and get 40 working chips from a 50 chip wafer (mind you both wafers are the same size you just get nore chips when using a smaller fab process)
|
High yields is quite important for a cheaper high volume product like a console. The larger and more complex, the worse the yields. Making sure the fab can fill the demand that product will have is also as important, whether it be yields or capacity. That last thing PS wants is a PS5 flying off shelves, with people constantly complaining they can't get one. If you forecast 10 million sales, but will only be able to produce 5 million due to the fab, that's a pretty big problem. There are other ways, but the CPU/GPU/APU are the prime factor. It's no coincidence that Pro and slim came out when they shrunk from 28nm to 16nm. Will PS celebrate their 25th anniversary?
Intrinsic said:
| EricHiggin said:
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.
|
You ad me both. But if as you knopw its aout costs. Will it cost sony less to build in 750GB to 1TB of super fast storage into the PS4 tha put in a user upgradeable SSD? Yes.
|
If it were mostly about cost then you could almost guarantee a 2TB HDD. It's also about future proofing like you said earlier, and convenience, etc. Solid state to some degree seems necessary, I don't disagree, but as for the total storage configuration, I wouldn't put my money on anything at this point in time. If I had to guess, I would say they stick with a PS4 like approach, and add some solid state, but that's just me. XB1X was a step in that direction already.
Intrinsic said:
EricHiggin said:
Sure but if Ryzen 2 is on 7nm next year, assuming that PS5 will end up on 7nm+ by years end seems like a far stretch. We also don't know what kind of capacity TSMC will have at that time. If they can't guarantee 10's of millions of chips early on in the gen on that process, with high yields, then PS won't use it.
Samsung is a different company with their own foundries so that doesn't mean much in terms of TSMC other than competition. How widely available and expensive are those products though?
|
I have no idea why you guys see to think the PS5 is releasing next year. I am going to say 2020 at the earliest. Thereis absolutely no reasn for sony to release next year.
|
Based on the rumor. Personally I'm 50/50. I see both good and bad to launching either 2019 or 2020.
