Quantcast
PS4 exclusives should get a 4K 60 with high resolution assets update next gen Update: Confirmed

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS4 exclusives should get a 4K 60 with high resolution assets update next gen Update: Confirmed

Intrinsic said:
Spindel said:
It would be so funny if Sony made a Nintendo and said ”fuck the power” and delivered something left field that is inovative.

I have never quite understood this thing.

But indulge me. What exactly is innovative about making a handheld that allows you connect it to a TV? 

Are laptops innovative too being that they allow us connect them to TVs too?

People throw that word around a lot........

PSP and PSVita, also could do hook to TV and streaming from console to HH.



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

Around the Network
Intrinsic said:
Spindel said:
It would be so funny if Sony made a Nintendo and said ”fuck the power” and delivered something left field that is inovative.

I have never quite understood this thing.

But indulge me. What exactly is innovative about making a handheld that allows you connect it to a TV? 

Are laptops innovative too being that they allow us connect them to TVs too?

People throw that word around a lot........

Woooosh!

 

thats the sound of you missing the point.

 

I’m not saying that Sony should copy Nintendo, I’m saying that Sony should ”do a Nintendo” which means: dropping the horse power race and actually bring some innovation or succeed by refining some older innovation that has failed in the past.



Spindel said:
Intrinsic said:

I have never quite understood this thing.

But indulge me. What exactly is innovative about making a handheld that allows you connect it to a TV? 

Are laptops innovative too being that they allow us connect them to TVs too?

People throw that word around a lot........

Woooosh!

 

thats the sound of you missing the point.

 

I’m not saying that Sony should copy Nintendo, I’m saying that Sony should ”do a Nintendo” which means: dropping the horse power race and actually bring some innovation or succeed by refining some older innovation that has failed in the past.

You mean like the PlayStation VR?

Oh wait sorry, that was clearly a blatant Virtual Boy rip-off.

My bad.



Intrinsic said:

Then you are choosing to ignore the facts.

XB1x with a 16nm APU has 6TF. Going from 28nm to 16nm allowed MS to increase their GPU CU count from 14 to 44. And sony to do the same from 20 to 40.

But yet you feel going from 16nm to 7nm will only yield a 50% bump at best? That makes no sense.

And you are ignoring some other facts. - It's not as black and white as you portray.

Remember... That Microsoft ditched the ESRAM with the Xbox One X... On the Original Xbox One, the SoC was roughly the same size as the Playstation 4, but had 50% less CU's... All because of that SRAM.

The move from 16nm to 7nm though will be a big one as it's a massive shift in geometries, 16nm is based on 20nm remember.
Where the extra gains will come from will be successive refined nodes... I.E. 20nm became 16nm with Finfet, which became 12nm and so on. Plus the refinements of each advertised process... Like 16nm Low-Power. etc'.
Same thing will occur with 7nm, expect it to be rebadged/refined as 6nm and so on.

TSMC pegs the move from 16nm to 7nm as 70% decrease in chip size with a 60% decrease in power consumption.
Global Foundries pegs the move from 14nm to 7nm as 65% decrease in chip size with a 60% decrease in power consumption.

That will of course improve as the process matures.

Intrinsic said:
Barring any other improvements, the PS5 and XB4 should at the very least have 12TF GPUs from just doubling the CU count from what we have in the XB1X which is something that is a default benefit of using 7nm fabrication. And this is assuming that clock speeds aren't improved in anyway. Like this is lookin at the least amount of specialized hardware engineering.

The Xbox One X is a "Premium" console not designed to hit low price points like the Xbox One or Xbox One S though.

With that said... Regardless of this forums userbases addiction to "Flops". - A pair or 6~ Teraflop Radeon RX 580's can outbench a 20~ Teraflop Vega 64 chip anyway, meaning there is nothing wrong with 10TF base machines if they are an efficient design. (None of AMD's GPU's currently can be regarded as efficient though.)

I doubt we will get anything like those chips anyway. - The current whispers-along-the-grape-vine is that Navi will be a Polaris Replacement, essentially should bring Vega 64 performance to 150w TDP, perfect for the mid-range, perfect for consoles.

Expect 64 CU's (Or there-abouts), expect more conservative clocks to keep power consumption in check.


 

Intrinsic said:

Unfortunately this is impossible.

Its not just a size issue but the nature of game data.

A game may need to load say 4GB of data data into RAM. Some may be mistaken to think "hey we have NVME SSDs now capable of 2GB/s transfer speeds so let them just throw one of those in there", but even if that were possible it won't make much of a difference. Reason being that that 4GB is made up of thousands of really small chunks of assets. Access times end up being the limiting factor.

Eg. a game takes

40sec to load with a 150MB/s HDD.

20sec with a 550MB/s SSD

17sec with a 2000MB/s NVME SSD.

Best way to combat load times in games is via really smart data streaming... but not all games can work like that.  

There are ways to circumvent that... I.E. Smart data streaming like you alluded to.
For instance, during 7th gen, some games would send a burst packet of data into DRAM and then used a few CPU cycles to decompress and "unpack" that packet into the dozens of smaller files, that reduces disk access significantly.

Zones said:
Spindel said:

Woooosh!

 

thats the sound of you missing the point.

 

I’m not saying that Sony should copy Nintendo, I’m saying that Sony should ”do a Nintendo” which means: dropping the horse power race and actually bring some innovation or succeed by refining some older innovation that has failed in the past.

You mean like the PlayStation VR?

Oh wait sorry, that was clearly a blatant Virtual Boy rip-off.

My bad.

This is going to go nowhere, so best to end that discussion now.



Zones said:
Spindel said:

Woooosh!

 

thats the sound of you missing the point.

 

I’m not saying that Sony should copy Nintendo, I’m saying that Sony should ”do a Nintendo” which means: dropping the horse power race and actually bring some innovation or succeed by refining some older innovation that has failed in the past.

You mean like the PlayStation VR?

Oh wait sorry, that was clearly a blatant Virtual Boy rip-off.

My bad.

VB was shit. 

 

If Sony actually made the PS5 without the ability to connect a TV or monitor making the only way to play it trough VR it would be a ballsy move. 

 

EDIT://Sadly I actually think PS 5 would fail under those conditions



Around the Network

Oh damn..can't wait to play God of War(sans checkerboard pattern) in 4k 60 and once again in Give me God of War to Sigrun defeat.



Pemalite said:

And you are ignoring some other facts. - It's not as black and white as you portray.

Remember... That Microsoft ditched the ESRAM with the Xbox One X... On the Original Xbox One, the SoC was roughly the same size as the Playstation 4, but had 50% less CU's... All because of that SRAM.

The move from 16nm to 7nm though will be a big one as it's a massive shift in geometries, 16nm is based on 20nm remember.
Where the extra gains will come from will be successive refined nodes... I.E. 20nm became 16nm with Finfet, which became 12nm and so on. Plus the refinements of each advertised process... Like 16nm Low-Power. etc'.
Same thing will occur with 7nm, expect it to be rebadged/refined as 6nm and so on.

TSMC pegs the move from 16nm to 7nm as 70% decrease in chip size with a 60% decrease in power consumption.
Global Foundries pegs the move from 14nm to 7nm as 65% decrease in chip size with a 60% decrease in power consumption.

That will of course improve as the process matures.

Oh I am aware its not as clear cut as that. But I also know that the move t 7nm is more significant than the move to 16nm from 28nm. I aso know that with 7nm building an APU like I have described is possible. Especially if they are aiming t have a similarly sized APU in those consoles as we do now in the PS4pro/XB1X

 

Pemalite said: 

The Xbox One X is a "Premium" console not designed to hit low price points like the Xbox One or Xbox One S though.


I doubt we will get anything like those chips anyway. - The current whispers-along-the-grape-vine is that Navi will be a Polaris Replacement, essentially should bring Vega 64 performance to 150w TDP, perfect for the mid-range, perfect for consoles.

Expect 64 CU's (Or there-abouts), expect more conservative clocks to keep power consumption in check.

I strongly dont think the things that make the XB1X "premium" will be issues when looking at next gen hardware. First off, I dn't think the XB1X APU has anything to do with it costing more. It has a GPU with 4 more CUs than the PS4pro but the overall die size is very similar to the PS4pro APU. It using a Vapor chamber and 12GB RAM on a 384bit bus is why it costs more than a PS4pro.

I dont see them using a vapor chamber r even a 384 bit bus n next gen consoles. They just don't need to and would still be able to get performance from their components that dwarfs what we have with the Pro or the X. Eg using 12 GDDR6 chips on a 256 bit bus will still yield over 600GB/s of bandwidth or if using a 384bit bus will result in around 800GB/s. And assuming they are using the cheaper 14Gb/s/pin variant of the memory. 

While I am aware f some sort of supposed 64 CU limitation with regards to Polaris we don't really know if that limitation will carry through to navi so I don't think we can just put the ceiling at 64 CUs right now. 

Also the thing about conservative clocks can sound misleading. Even though you are right. Eg Say the CPU is based on an 8Core zen that ideally clocks up to 4GHz. Conservative clocks for consoles will probably bring that down to 3Ghz. Say the navi based GPU is designed to run at 1.8GHz - 2Ghz, console speeds will again be like say 1.2Ghz - 1.5hz. That is still a massive bump in performance when considering all the new components being used.

 

Pemalite said: 

There are ways to circumvent that... I.E. Smart data streaming like you alluded to.
For instance, during 7th gen, some games would send a burst packet of data into DRAM and then used a few CPU cycles to decompress and "unpack" that packet into the dozens of smaller files, that reduces disk access significantly.

Yes, and maybe those methods can be employed again next gen but I think they didn't use those methods this gen because of the weaker CPUs in the current gen consoles.

Last edited by Intrinsic - on 05 January 2019

vivster said:
GOWTLOZ said:

PS4 exclusives are 1080p 30 fps on the base console and go upto checkerboard 4K 30 fps on Pro. We know Pro is bottled by its weak CPU and its lack of memory.

PS5 is supposedly going to have Ryzen CPU and a GPU 3 times more powerful in terms of teraflops, with a more modern architecture and with 16 GB of RAM atleast as Xbox One X already has 12 GB. The suggested specs should easily run PS4 Pro games at twice the resolution, as checkerboarding halves the resolution on one axis and twice the framerate, which is fairly easy since the GPU is hugely powerful and even PS4 Pro's weak CPU can run some exclusives at 1080p 60 fps. The 16 GB RAM will allow 4K textures. I'm certain PS5 will be capable of doing this if these are the specifications, but of course Sony needs to allow its developers to upgrade their games on PS5.

I will believe a 10+ TFLOPS PS5 when I see it. The current high end tops off at about 15TFLOPS and midrange is about half of that. Unless they make a more expensive Pro version right at launch I don't see PS5 being that powerful. Console makers have shown nothing but utter contempt when it comes to games at 30+ FPS, so I do not expect them to take that as a goal when it's so much easier and cheaper to work with a 4k30 baseline.

1. Vega GPUs are already well above 10 TFlops and Navi will be the architecture used in PS5 which should be more power efficient. An 11 TFlop GPU is atleast expected of these consoles.

2. We are talking PS4 games here. Such high GPU and CPU power would easily run PS4 exclusives at 4K 60 FPS.

3. Plenty of Microsoft and Sony games are 60 fps on current gen consoles. Here are some:

Xbox One: Forza Motorsport 5, 6 and 7, Gears of War 4, Halo 5

Xbox One X: Forza Horizon 3 and 4 and the above.

PS4: Gran Turismo Sport, Killzone Shadowfall multiplayer, Uncharted 4 multiplayer

PS4 Pro: Shadow of the Colossus, Infamous Second Son and the above.



Intrinsic said:

Oh I am aware its not as clear cut as that. But I also know that the move t 7nm is more significant than the move to 16nm from 28nm. I aso know that with 7nm building an APU like I have described is possible. Especially if they are aiming t have a similarly sized APU in those consoles as we do now in the PS4pro/XB1X

The move from 28nm to 16nm was actually extremely substantial, in some ways... More substantial than the move from 16nm to 7nm... And that is mostly thanks to Finfet. Aka. "3D Transistors".
50% higher clockrates, 50% smaller chips in conjunction with 50% less power consumption wasn't uncommon when compared just against 20nm. (Let alone 28nm.)

And that is before we look at variants like 16nm FF Compact.

The issue with 16nm though is that it is based upon 20nm BEOL... So they were more reliant on Finfets for gains. - But when you start comparing the process against 28nm, it's a significantly more substantial jump.

Intrinsic said:

I strongly dont think the things that make the XB1X "premium" will be issues when looking at next gen hardware. First off, I dn't think the XB1X APU has anything to do with it costing more. It has a GPU with 4 more CUs than the PS4pro but the overall die size is very similar to the PS4pro APU. It using a Vapor chamber and 12GB RAM on a 384bit bus is why it costs more than a PS4pro.

I agree, to an extent.
When you start to break down the Xbox One X into components and analyze what makes it a "Premium" device, you can quickly see where they can cut some corners or substitute some technologies in order to allow for lower price points.

Intrinsic said:

I dont see them using a vapor chamber r even a 384 bit bus n next gen consoles.

Yeah. I think for a base console, Vapor Chambers will be relegated to the scrap heap. - They are simply to expensive.
That is provided they stay around the 120w TDP mark... Which 7nm should allow for. - Navi with 64CU's should fit that bill, in-fact the rumors are suggesting that is exactly where it should fall.

A higher end console like the Xbox One X though that pushes 250w~ TDP though will need a vapor chamber.

Intrinsic said:

They just don't need to and would still be able to get performance from their components that dwarfs what we have with the Pro or the X. Eg using 12 GDDR6 chips on a 256 bit bus will still yield over 600GB/s of bandwidth or if using a 384bit bus will result in around 800GB/s. And assuming they are using the cheaper 14Gb/s/pin variant of the memory.

Dwarfing the Playstation 4 Pro or Xbox One X was possible before those consoles even released, it's not actually a difficult task... All just comes down to costs in the end.

As for GDDR6, that is likely a given, Microsoft probably won't make the same mistake twice and go with an older/slower memory technology that is getting more expensive... And Sony will likely not go for something more exotic/expensive again either.

256bit bus is the sweet spot for a base console, it's a known quantity, doesn't require an exotic memory controller, doesn't require a ton of PCB traces and thus layers and doesn't require a complex power delivery system to feed everything.

512GB/s of bandwidth on a 256-bit bus is fine, great for 4k gaming and a base console... And perhaps we might see an iterative update to Delta Colour Compression.
Tonga's colour compression bolstered bandwidth by 40%. - Polaris increased that by an additional 17%... So we could be looking at 839GB/s of usable bandwidth in an ideal scenario... And that is before we start taking into account modern improvements to that technology that could add another 10-20%.

And the fact that Navi should also bring with it functioning Draw Stream Rasterization and Primitive Shaders to further increase efficiency. (With some luck.)


Intrinsic said:

While I am aware f some sort of supposed 64 CU limitation with regards to Polaris we don't really know if that limitation will carry through to navi so I don't think we can just put the ceiling at 64 CUs right now.

64CU's tends to be the hard limit for Graphics Core Next in general, not just Polaris.
Navi is supposed to have "improved scalability". - So AMD may have circumvented that, then again... They might not have and would rather put a greater focus on their next-gen GPU architecture rather than Navi which is the old dregs of Graphics Core Next.

64CU's is just going to be the mid-range, sweet spot at 7nm, it's where Navi is targeting... And the mid-range is where consoles typically sit on the GPU ladder.

Intrinsic said:

Also the thing about conservative clocks can sound misleading. Even though you are right. Eg Say the CPU is based on an 8Core zen that ideally clocks up to 4GHz. Conservative clocks for consoles will probably bring that down to 3Ghz. Say the navi based GPU is designed to run at 1.8GHz - 2Ghz, console speeds will again be like say 1.2Ghz - 1.5hz. That is still a massive bump in performance when considering all the new components being used.

Conservative clocks is just so they can get as many functional chips out of a wafer. Not every chip will hit high clockspeeds with moderate voltages, so you have two options... Increase the voltage of every chip which increases heat, power consumption and the need for better cooling or decrease clockrates.

Graphics Core Next has proven to be a bit of a power hog at high clocks as well... For all the shit Vega gets, once you underclock and undervolt that GPU, it's actually really efficient, AMD just pushed things to far on that design.

For clockspeeds... Polaris was 150w TDP @ 1152Mhz.
Vega 64 was 1247mhz @ 295w TDP

I think around 1.5 would be a good ballpark to expect as 7nm brings with it some gains on that front. - I wouldn't even be surprised if it sits closer to 2ghz on the GPU clock.

Zen is interesting.... A 4 Core/8 thread Ryzen 2700u can sit at  around 2.9Ghz on my laptop with all threads loaded... That is at 25w TDP.
If next gen goes with a single CCX and if AMD increased the CCX to 6 or 8 cores, I would expect 3ghz at around that same level.

That's what I mean by conservative... And not something like 4Ghz.

Intrinsic said:

Yes, and maybe those methods can be employed again next gen but I think they didn't use those methods this gen because of the weaker CPUs in the current gen consoles.

This generations CPU's are significantly faster than last generations and offer better all-round performance, especially once we start looking at integer performance.
The leap wasn't as great as it could have been though... But that was AMD's own fault for not having a compelling CPU design to start with. - But that's no longer a problem thankfully.


GOWTLOZ said:

1. Vega GPUs are already well above 10 TFlops and Navi will be the architecture used in PS5 which should be more power efficient. An 11 TFlop GPU is atleast expected of these consoles.

Flops is pretty irrelevant.



Pemalite said:
Intrinsic said:

Oh I am aware its not as clear cut as that. But I also know that the move t 7nm is more significant than the move to 16nm from 28nm. I aso know that with 7nm building an APU like I have described is possible. Especially if they are aiming t have a similarly sized APU in those consoles as we do now in the PS4pro/XB1X

The move from 28nm to 16nm was actually extremely substantial, in some ways... More substantial than the move from 16nm to 7nm... And that is mostly thanks to Finfet. Aka. "3D Transistors".
50% higher clockrates, 50% smaller chips in conjunction with 50% less power consumption wasn't uncommon when compared just against 20nm. (Let alone 28nm.)

And that is before we look at variants like 16nm FF Compact.

The issue with 16nm though is that it is based upon 20nm BEOL... So they were more reliant on Finfets for gains. - But when you start comparing the process against 28nm, it's a significantly more substantial jump.

Intrinsic said:

I strongly dont think the things that make the XB1X "premium" will be issues when looking at next gen hardware. First off, I dn't think the XB1X APU has anything to do with it costing more. It has a GPU with 4 more CUs than the PS4pro but the overall die size is very similar to the PS4pro APU. It using a Vapor chamber and 12GB RAM on a 384bit bus is why it costs more than a PS4pro.

I agree, to an extent.
When you start to break down the Xbox One X into components and analyze what makes it a "Premium" device, you can quickly see where they can cut some corners or substitute some technologies in order to allow for lower price points.

Intrinsic said:

I dont see them using a vapor chamber r even a 384 bit bus n next gen consoles.

Yeah. I think for a base console, Vapor Chambers will be relegated to the scrap heap. - They are simply to expensive.
That is provided they stay around the 120w TDP mark... Which 7nm should allow for. - Navi with 64CU's should fit that bill, in-fact the rumors are suggesting that is exactly where it should fall.

A higher end console like the Xbox One X though that pushes 250w~ TDP though will need a vapor chamber.

Intrinsic said:

They just don't need to and would still be able to get performance from their components that dwarfs what we have with the Pro or the X. Eg using 12 GDDR6 chips on a 256 bit bus will still yield over 600GB/s of bandwidth or if using a 384bit bus will result in around 800GB/s. And assuming they are using the cheaper 14Gb/s/pin variant of the memory.

Dwarfing the Playstation 4 Pro or Xbox One X was possible before those consoles even released, it's not actually a difficult task... All just comes down to costs in the end.

As for GDDR6, that is likely a given, Microsoft probably won't make the same mistake twice and go with an older/slower memory technology that is getting more expensive... And Sony will likely not go for something more exotic/expensive again either.

256bit bus is the sweet spot for a base console, it's a known quantity, doesn't require an exotic memory controller, doesn't require a ton of PCB traces and thus layers and doesn't require a complex power delivery system to feed everything.

512GB/s of bandwidth on a 256-bit bus is fine, great for 4k gaming and a base console... And perhaps we might see an iterative update to Delta Colour Compression.
Tonga's colour compression bolstered bandwidth by 40%. - Polaris increased that by an additional 17%... So we could be looking at 839GB/s of usable bandwidth in an ideal scenario... And that is before we start taking into account modern improvements to that technology that could add another 10-20%.

And the fact that Navi should also bring with it functioning Draw Stream Rasterization and Primitive Shaders to further increase efficiency. (With some luck.)


Intrinsic said:

While I am aware f some sort of supposed 64 CU limitation with regards to Polaris we don't really know if that limitation will carry through to navi so I don't think we can just put the ceiling at 64 CUs right now.

64CU's tends to be the hard limit for Graphics Core Next in general, not just Polaris.
Navi is supposed to have "improved scalability". - So AMD may have circumvented that, then again... They might not have and would rather put a greater focus on their next-gen GPU architecture rather than Navi which is the old dregs of Graphics Core Next.

64CU's is just going to be the mid-range, sweet spot at 7nm, it's where Navi is targeting... And the mid-range is where consoles typically sit on the GPU ladder.

Intrinsic said:

Also the thing about conservative clocks can sound misleading. Even though you are right. Eg Say the CPU is based on an 8Core zen that ideally clocks up to 4GHz. Conservative clocks for consoles will probably bring that down to 3Ghz. Say the navi based GPU is designed to run at 1.8GHz - 2Ghz, console speeds will again be like say 1.2Ghz - 1.5hz. That is still a massive bump in performance when considering all the new components being used.

Conservative clocks is just so they can get as many functional chips out of a wafer. Not every chip will hit high clockspeeds with moderate voltages, so you have two options... Increase the voltage of every chip which increases heat, power consumption and the need for better cooling or decrease clockrates.

Graphics Core Next has proven to be a bit of a power hog at high clocks as well... For all the shit Vega gets, once you underclock and undervolt that GPU, it's actually really efficient, AMD just pushed things to far on that design.

For clockspeeds... Polaris was 150w TDP @ 1152Mhz.
Vega 64 was 1247mhz @ 295w TDP

I think around 1.5 would be a good ballpark to expect as 7nm brings with it some gains on that front. - I wouldn't even be surprised if it sits closer to 2ghz on the GPU clock.

Zen is interesting.... A 4 Core/8 thread Ryzen 2700u can sit at  around 2.9Ghz on my laptop with all threads loaded... That is at 25w TDP.
If next gen goes with a single CCX and if AMD increased the CCX to 6 or 8 cores, I would expect 3ghz at around that same level.

That's what I mean by conservative... And not something like 4Ghz.

Intrinsic said:

Yes, and maybe those methods can be employed again next gen but I think they didn't use those methods this gen because of the weaker CPUs in the current gen consoles.

This generations CPU's are significantly faster than last generations and offer better all-round performance, especially once we start looking at integer performance.
The leap wasn't as great as it could have been though... But that was AMD's own fault for not having a compelling CPU design to start with. - But that's no longer a problem thankfully.


GOWTLOZ said:

1. Vega GPUs are already well above 10 TFlops and Navi will be the architecture used in PS5 which should be more power efficient. An 11 TFlop GPU is atleast expected of these consoles.

Flops is pretty irrelevant.

Flops are relevant, they give a good ballpark estimation of what the hardware can do.