Quantcast
Speculation - 4800H cpu is what next gen consoles will have.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Speculation - 4800H cpu is what next gen consoles will have.

Do you think this will be the case?

Yeah, think so. 8 72.73%
 
Nah, not happending. 3 27.27%
 
Total:11
DonFerrari said:

HollyGamer said:

If you believe on flute benchmark that  supposed to be a PS5 prototype benchmark , it mentioned that it has a performance of Zen 1. Which is equal to ryzen 3700 with cut down cache  and run at  lower clock speed. I think we will get a cut down version of Ryzen 3700 or a mild modified version on it. It will be cheaper and will have better size to fit on an apu and to let more space  for more CU GPU on reasonable lower yield. 

But i am still not convinced that PS5 will have 9.2 teraflop GPU from 36 CU . It will have temperature problem and eat a lot of power. They probably will have more CU but run at mild clock speed to achieve 10 teraflop of performance. 

So i believe this is the CPU we will have or perhaps PS5 will have the same performance more or less with this one. 

It is confirmed to be Zen2 on the consoles.

I know, what i mean is a cut down L3 cache  and underclocked core speed of Ryzen 3700 (Zen 2) will be equal to the performance of overclocked Ryzen 1700 (zen 1). The flute benchmark shows that the Oberon that were using Zen 2 run at lower clocked and supposed to be an cut of L3 cache. Game console does not need a lot of cache on running program and don't need a very high clock speed . Because it run only game API and menu only. 



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:
DonFerrari said:

It is confirmed to be Zen2 on the consoles.

I know, what i mean is a cut down L3 cache  and underclocked core speed of Ryzen 3700 (Zen 2) will be equal to the performance of overclocked Ryzen 1700 (zen 1). The flute benchmark shows that the Oberon that were using Zen 2 run at lower clocked and supposed to be an cut of L3 cache. Game console does not need a lot of cache on running program and don't need a very high clock speed . Because it run only game API and menu only. 

Ok I understood.



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

Bofferbrauer2 said:
EricHiggin said:

Ryzen mobile 4000 is also still entirely Vega I believe, just significantly optimized apparently, and 8CU's max. RDNA is quite a bit more power efficient than GCN, or was, so 45w is higher than it should be if this was the same chip using RDNA. The die size should also be smaller if it was using RDNA should it not?

I'm starting to believe the rumors of SNY helping to fund RDNA. Possibly even MS as well. Why would AMD still be using Vega and GCN for their APU's? Could be manpower and time, but it wouldn't surprise me if part of the deal is that Navi RDNA has to launch on console APU's first, before desktop or laptop APU's. This would allow AMD to launch the RDNA 5000 Series discrete GPU's last year and this year, but they would have to hold off on RDNA APU's until next year, after the consoles launch holiday 2020.

*Smart shift tech for AMD APU's should also help. Being able to shift and focus resources from CPU to GPU and vice versa should allow for even better overall performance from the hardware that ends up in the consoles.

Well, RDNA is just an evolution of GCN and based on the GCN instruction set. It just got heavily optimized and overhauled at some places, especially code scheduling, most notably on the Wavefront: The Wavefront shrank from 64 to 32 threads (64 threads is still supported) for better utilization and can now add new instructions every cycle to it instead every 4 cycles, and 2 CU are grouped together into a Work Group Processor, but it's base is still GCN. I thus believe that the Vega in the 4000 APUs are actually closer to Navi, just don't go all the way and are thus still called Vega.

And the reason why the amount of CU got dropped to 8 could also be in part simply because the bandwidth limitations are choking bigger chips anyway, so only putting 8 of then onto the chip makes them significantly smaller without hampering the graphics performance much.

JRPGfan said:
EricHiggin said:

Ryzen mobile 4000 is also still entirely Vega I believe, just significantly optimized apparently, and 8CU's max. RDNA is quite a bit more power efficient than GCN, or was, so 45w is higher than it should be if this was the same chip using RDNA. The die size should also be smaller if it was using RDNA should it not?

I'm starting to believe the rumors of SNY helping to fund RDNA. Possibly even MS as well. Why would AMD still be using Vega and GCN for their APU's? Could be manpower and time, but it wouldn't surprise me if part of the deal is that Navi RDNA has to launch on console APU's first, before desktop or laptop APU's. This would allow AMD to launch the RDNA 5000 Series discrete GPU's last year and this year, but they would have to hold off on RDNA APU's until next year, after the consoles launch holiday 2020.

*Smart shift tech for AMD APU's should also help. Being able to shift and focus resources from CPU to GPU and vice versa should allow for even better overall performance from the hardware that ends up in the consoles.

These APUs (4800H or 4800U) are still useing Vega, but its a much improved version, useing some of their findings from RDNA.
Supposedly these vega parts give +59% better performance than old Vega cores.

Which is why you see them say 8CU, will give higher performance (~30%) than last gens 11CU's.

Can't help but wonder how much Vega has actually changed then. Why not give it a different name? In terms of marketing, having a new GCN arch that's much more capable than Vega should be more enticing to buyers than simply saying we improved Vega quite a bit.

Didn't think of bandwidth starvation. Good point. AMD surely can sell as many APU's and chiplets as they can make, so the smaller they are the better. The only buyers who lose are any who want a no compromise 1080p/60 APU, but it seems like AMD doesn't want to cross that line, at least not yet.



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.

JRPGfan said:

So.... the 4800H is a 45w TPD part, that probably owes 10w of that TPD or so to the buildt in, GPU.
Its a 8core/16thread cpu with a base of 2.9GHz and a boost clock of 4,2GHz.

I can imagine next consoles to spend ~35watts of their power budget, on the CPU.
Which I believe a 4800H would be around.

So what does this all mean?
Well console CPUs are about to get pretty beefy.

Aparently one of these 4800H can beat a stock i7 - 9700k in firestrike physics (cpu) bench.

This the explanation how it works 



how big is the expected cpu jump from ps4 to ps5??



Around the Network
KratosLives said:
how big is the expected cpu jump from ps4 to ps5??



Intrinsic said:
JRPGfan said:

"Next-gen APUs will be in the 300mm2-405mm2 range, up from the 300mm2-360mm2 range of the current-gen chips. "

After Xbox showed off the photo of the chip, people have estimated it to be upwards of 420mm^2.
Supposedly its rumored to have 56 CU's (compute units) (3584 shaders) in the GPU portion.

Sony is only useing 36 CU's but running at higher speeds (smaller chip to save costs), downsize is its not as power effecient to do this.
Sony chip might be like 270mm^2.

Not sure if that alone is enough to account for a 100$ differnce in price, but it could.

There is absolutely nothing to prove nor confirm what sony is going to use with regards to their CU count.

The only thing that the leaks really suggest is that sony had dev kits or engineering samples out there earlier. That's not indicative of final hardware, but just saying that sony wanted devs to be able to get on actual next-gen development earlier and test out other more exotic components of their hardware.

If you ask me, my money would be on the GPU CU count in the PS5 being at something like 40(44) or 44(48). I expect MS to go with a 52(56) layout.

It just makes no sense that there could b such a discrepancy in CU count between the two to the tune of 36(40) and 52(56). Even if Sony is going the higher clocks route. The only way that makes sense is if they are also going the $399 route.

I also expect Sony to go with overall less RAM than whatever MS goes with, so something like 16GB for sony vs 20GB for MS, and sony's reason for this would because they would have the better or faster SSD. I expect Sony to go with faster GDDR6 chips than MS though.

The github leak clearly says PS5 is 36CU and I think that is fine. Based on all the leaks I think we are looking at:

PS5, 300mm2, 36(40)CU, Tsmc 7nm euv and for Xbox series X 350mm2, 52(56)CU also with tsmc 7nm euv. It's very likely that Wccftech and Eurogamer got the die size for Xbox series X wrong.

And I don't think 40(44) CU layout is possible based on looking at Navi10 and Navi14.



"Donald Trump is the greatest president that god has ever created" - Trumpstyle

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Trumpstyle said:
Intrinsic said:

There is absolutely nothing to prove nor confirm what sony is going to use with regards to their CU count.

The only thing that the leaks really suggest is that sony had dev kits or engineering samples out there earlier. That's not indicative of final hardware, but just saying that sony wanted devs to be able to get on actual next-gen development earlier and test out other more exotic components of their hardware.

If you ask me, my money would be on the GPU CU count in the PS5 being at something like 40(44) or 44(48). I expect MS to go with a 52(56) layout.

It just makes no sense that there could b such a discrepancy in CU count between the two to the tune of 36(40) and 52(56). Even if Sony is going the higher clocks route. The only way that makes sense is if they are also going the $399 route.

I also expect Sony to go with overall less RAM than whatever MS goes with, so something like 16GB for sony vs 20GB for MS, and sony's reason for this would because they would have the better or faster SSD. I expect Sony to go with faster GDDR6 chips than MS though.

The github leak clearly says PS5 is 36CU and I think that is fine. Based on all the leaks I think we are looking at:

PS5, 300mm2, 36(40)CU, Tsmc 7nm euv and for Xbox series X 350mm2, 52(56)CU also with tsmc 7nm euv. It's very likely that Wccftech and Eurogamer got the die size for Xbox series X wrong.

And I don't think 40(44) CU layout is possible based on looking at Navi10 and Navi14.

The Github leak is not the indication that the final console will be using that setup. It clearly a very old test without context and without any concrete info. many number and data that came are inaccurate and contradicted, also AMD masked their GPU/CPU/APU  id and chip ID to confuse data miners. 

Even Komachi, Tum Appisak and others data miners  has explained that their data are from very old test back from early 2017  early 2018. A lot of thing has change in 2019 to 2020.

Also even if Sony are targeting 9 teraflop it will not work with 2 Ghz of 36 CU. It will burn the chip and super inefficient and will be more expensive then using 52 CU run at lower clock speed to achieved 9 Teraflop. 

Another prove is the chip size you mentioned is incorrect, You are using Aquazhi leaker number on comparing  Arden (350 mm2) with Oberon (300mm2). Arden actually around 410 mm2 (from Scarlet Engine Phils shows in His Twitter profile). So we still don't know how big PS5  APU is or which APU Sony will be using for.

Even if Aquazhi is correct with 15% different size with Arden and Oberon , Sony APU are still able to fit more CU more then 36 CU. If The Info from Windows Central  are true that Arden are using 56 active CU (from total 60 Cu) then with 15% smaller die size on Oberon, Oberon will still able to fit around 52 Cu with 48 Active. 

Also alot of trustworthy insider mentioned that both console will be very  close in teraflop number and performance , the difference will be on secret sauce and other methode and games exclusives and service. 

It's to early to make conclusion. 



HollyGamer said:
Trumpstyle said:

The github leak clearly says PS5 is 36CU and I think that is fine. Based on all the leaks I think we are looking at:

PS5, 300mm2, 36(40)CU, Tsmc 7nm euv and for Xbox series X 350mm2, 52(56)CU also with tsmc 7nm euv. It's very likely that Wccftech and Eurogamer got the die size for Xbox series X wrong.

And I don't think 40(44) CU layout is possible based on looking at Navi10 and Navi14.

The Github leak is not the indication that the final console will be using that setup. It clearly a very old test without context and without any concrete info. many number and data that came are inaccurate and contradicted, also AMD masked their GPU/CPU/APU  id and chip ID to confuse data miners. 

Even Komachi, Tum Appisak and others data miners  has explained that their data are from very old test back from early 2017  early 2018. A lot of thing has change in 2019 to 2020.

Also even if Sony are targeting 9 teraflop it will not work with 2 Ghz of 36 CU. It will burn the chip and super inefficient and will be more expensive then using 52 CU run at lower clock speed to achieved 9 Teraflop. 

Another prove is the chip size you mentioned is incorrect, You are using Aquazhi leaker number on comparing  Arden (350 mm2) with Oberon (300mm2). Arden actually around 410 mm2 (from Scarlet Engine Phils shows in His Twitter profile). So we still don't know how big PS5  APU is or which APU Sony will be using for.

Even if Aquazhi is correct with 15% different size with Arden and Oberon , Sony APU are still able to fit more CU more then 36 CU. If The Info from Windows Central  are true that Arden are using 56 active CU (from total 60 Cu) then with 15% smaller die size on Oberon, Oberon will still able to fit around 52 Cu with 48 Active. 

Also alot of trustworthy insider mentioned that both console will be very  close in teraflop number and performance , the difference will be on secret sauce and other methode and games exclusives and service. 

It's to early to make conclusion. 

Yep the die size estimates are from Aquazhi or what he is called, I expect to him to be correct as he nailed Navi10, Navi14 and Amd renoir die sizes with precision and will probably do so again with PS5 and Xbox series X. Eurogamer and Wccftech I think got their estimates wrong.

2ghz does indeed seems high for a gpu but might be possible on 7nm EUV or N7P, we will see. And the github leak is not outdated, the last tests ran around June 2019. From what I read on the internet it takes 2 years to design a new SOC so I think oberon with 36CU's will be on PS5.

I don't think 56(60)CU's is a possible CU config, I think 52(56) is the best solution for 12TF, maybe 56(64)CU but I find this unlikely. As why insiders saying both console are close is probably because Sony is running their devkit with all CU enable and clocked higher than 2ghz and has 572GB/s memory bandwidth, this would put it close to Xbox Series X. But in the end this are all guesses so we just haft to w8 and see.



"Donald Trump is the greatest president that god has ever created" - Trumpstyle

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Good luck!

Really wondered how it was that you were still posting, as I thought Australia already had mobilized every firefighter against the bushfires. Kudos to you for doing what you are doing and stay safe out there!

They do rotating deployments.
So we get sent to the fire ground for 5 days, then sent back home for 2 days rest, then sent out again. - Fly back out tomorrow.
Does mean I have very limited ability to be on the forums for now, but the fire season won't last forever.

EricHiggin said:

These Ryzen 4000 mobile chips go into laptops with way worse cooling compared to desktops and consoles. Now some high end gaming laptops have decent cooling, but it's still not anywhere near what the consoles will able to provide in terms of cooling performance. This will be a major benefit to the consoles. It's also why we've been constantly seeing the leaks of 3.2GHz for the CPU. Instead of 2.9GHz like in the laptops, it'll probably be 3.2GHz, with up to 4.2GHz boost, which will be sustained for much much longer because of the console cooling capability. Especially in the XBSX based on it's design.

We'll see with the PS5, but the dev leaks have said the devkit it another jet like PS4. Now I've also seen a few suggestions based on leaks, that the 36CU GPU at 2.0GHz is actually the RDNA 5700 Series clocked up as high as it will go with extra cooling capabilities, and is only for late stage dev kits. The thought process is just to give devs RDNA hardware asap to get them as far ahead as possible for the 2020 launch, while the real GPU arch get's finished for final dev kits later on. I wouldn't be surprised if this is true because 36CU's seems like a 2019 launch choice.

It's not unusual for final consoles to have final hardware deviate from the early pre-launch console dev-kits anyway.

Basically the current devkits are just performance targeted machines, they take current technology, that regardless of cost will be "close enough" to next gen hardware for the dev kits in terms of performance, it does mean that a few features may be omitted because of it. (I.E. Ray Tracing.)

Bofferbrauer2 said:

 I thus believe that the Vega in the 4000 APUs are actually closer to Navi, just don't go all the way and are thus still called Vega.

And the reason why the amount of CU got dropped to 8 could also be in part simply because the bandwidth limitations are choking bigger chips anyway, so only putting 8 of then onto the chip makes them significantly smaller without hampering the graphics performance much.

Nah. Still purely Vega.

AMD's decision to cut back on CU's was actually a cost-saving measure, by cutting back on CU's, but clocking the Graphics Higher... AMD was able to reduce the amount of transistors invested into graphics, but was still able to increase performance by 50% or more.

That then gave AMD the freedom to invest more transistors into the CPU portion of the chip, there-by giving us 8-CPU cores.

The older Vega chips in the Ryzen 2000 and 3000 APU's were certainly bandwidth starved, but they were also TDP starved, you could often increase performance rather significantly if you kept the CPU cores throttled down low so that the APU funneled more TDP into the GPU portion of the chip.

And the reason why AMD opted for Vega over Navi for it's 4000 series was also a cost factor, Navi requires more transistors than Vega for every CU... And Vega is extremely energy efficient at lower clockrates... I mean, feature wise it's a dud chip as AMD's Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer and Primitive Shaders were pretty half-arsed implemented anyway.

DonFerrari said:

So it is eligible to be on PS5/XSX =]

Most certainly.

EricHiggin said:

Can't help but wonder how much Vega has actually changed then. Why not give it a different name? In terms of marketing, having a new GCN arch that's much more capable than Vega should be more enticing to buyers than simply saying we improved Vega quite a bit.

Didn't think of bandwidth starvation. Good point. AMD surely can sell as many APU's and chiplets as they can make, so the smaller they are the better. The only buyers who lose are any who want a no compromise 1080p/60 APU, but it seems like AMD doesn't want to cross that line, at least not yet.

Vega was always a little different to the desktop variants anyway, especially in the video encode/decode department.

It's not a big deviation.

There are two ways to drive performance on a GPU with the same architecture... Increase clockrates or build a larger chip and make everything wider.
AMD opted to increase clockrates this time around.

For example...
Take an 8CU part and clock it at 1Ghz. That is 1 Teraflop of single precision capability.
Or take that 8CU and cut it in half with 4CU's and clock it at 2Ghz. That is also 1 Teraflop of single precision capability... But the GPU takes up significantly less space.

Clockspeed tends to have another advantage though, it makes the *entire* GPU run faster, so if you were ROP limited before, then the 4CU part could offer a significant improvement on that front for example,



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