Let's talk about Specs

[Pemalite]

Conina said:

Okay, let's talk specs.

I was wondering at first why Mark Cerny said that 825 GB are the "most natural size" for a 12-channel interface, although 825 does not divide very well by 12.

But gigabyte and terabyte are based on the decimal system (1 terabyte = 10^12 bytes = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes) and not on the binary system like RAM (1 tebibyte = 2^40 bytes = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes).

And 825 gigabytes = 768 gibibytes (or to be exact 768 gibibytes are 824.633720832 gigabytes, rounded up to 825 GB).

768 Gibibyte divided by 12 lines = exactly 64 gibibyte per channel.

You are reading to much into it.

There is likely some NAND reserved as spare area for various tasks to maintain performance that isn't accounted for.

alexxonne said:

Assuming my cheap calculations. If the PS5 GPU would had 42 CU or clocked at 2,670mhz, it could have achieved 12TFlops similar to Xbox series X. If the PS5 GPU were to have 52 CU as Xbox series X then it would have 14.82 Tflops. By contrast if XBox series X GPU were to be clocked similar to the PS5 GPU 2.23Ghz (2,283.5 Mhz ), then it would had 14.44 Tflops. What do you thinks guys?

The announced specs only makes sense if they are targeting a $400 price range. Perfectly for 4K gaming at 60fps, but not more than that. Also I'm sad they didn't talk about BC features for ps3/ps2/ps1.

Could the ps5 gpu be having several disabled CU and holding them until release? Is not unprecedented or unheard of.
In addition Cerny talked about using a GPU CU as a processing unit for audio. So...either games will use 35 CU or the PS5 GPU has more than 36 CU to be used.

I think you have placed far to much emphasis on flops rather than capabilities.

BraLoD said:
I still can't believe both stuck with those RAMs.
MS got fast and slow mixed, Sony got unified average. Both only 16Gb.
This seriously sucks.

Me and CGI called it years ago.

Our original predictions were... 16GB of Ram... Yet we still had people thinking 128GB or more. Was pretty funny at the time!

JRPGfan said:

ram was used to "store" data you needed quick access too, you couldnt affoard to wait on your slow mechanical hard drive to get.

Ram is still used to "store" data that is needed for quick access... Because we still cannot afford to wait on a slow SSD for data.

Ram is 500GB/s or more. SSD's are 1/10th of that.

JRPGfan said:

Thats no longer a issue, with how quick (esp sony's) SSD is.
This drastically reduces the amount of actual ram needed, when you run games.

It's still an issue, it's just much less of an issue.
You are right it should reduce the need for more RAM, but it doesn't remove the need for it entirely.

We will be RAM starved this generation, especially later on in the console cycle.

JRPGfan said:

It might even effect sizes of games, where they might have duplicates of data,
thats mixed in with differnt parts, so they "could" be loaded like this into ram.
Stuff like that will be gone with next gen.

They didn't duplicate data on a mechanical disk, that occurred with optical disks due to their much lower seek times.

JRPGfan said:

These SSD are almost like virtual ram in themselves, you just go directly to the SSD to load stuff, isntead of first loading it into your ram.

^ atleast I think thats what cerny was saying.

Not really. It's just "Virtual Memory". - Which is a technology that has existed for the last 30 years in various forms. Fuck. Even the Original Xbox used it!