EricHiggin said:

I don't know if I would say he was super clear, but he definitely implied games would be smaller due to not having to duplicate data in the presentation. This might be a bigger deal than it seems with only an 825GB raw storage space.

Duplicating data on a mechanical drive generally doesn't happen... It became a necessity on an Optical drive because of how much slower seek times were... Plus optical disks have a myriad of performance characteristics depending on where data is physically located on the optical disk.

Such issues tend to be lessened on a mechanical disk.

Fact is, games on Consoles, installed to a mechanical disk are generally a match for the PC's install size as well.. And I can assure you, there is no duplication of data going on there.

EricHiggin said:

Yes, I would assume AMD does the overwhelming majority of the engineering and design. We'll have to see if SmartShift is a feature in big Navi cards that are supposed to be coming later this year. Cerny seemed to be hinting there's something worthy in RDNA 2 thanks to SNY.

Smartshift is not going to be on Big Navi or RDNA2.
The technology requires a CPU and GPU and other logic to actually function in a single package.

What HSA does for memory coherency... Smartshift does for power coherency.

EricHiggin said:

The leaks have existed for some time that 2.0GHz was supposed to be the peak. There was a rumor/leak not all that long ago that SNY had upgraded to, or decided to go with a pricey high end cooling solution. It's possible they got fairly solid info on XBSX and decided to push PS5 clocks slightly beyond where they were initially planned to be capped. Could also be why the talk was promoted, since they may not have final hardware yet. The shell may need to be slightly redesigned or increased in size. They would want to test plenty with new shells to make sure the heat dissipation and sound levels are acceptable before showing it off. Could also just be marketing tactics, since PS4 wasn't shown early.

The GPU Peak is 2.23Ghz. It can sustain that provided the CPU and I/O aren't pegged at 100%.

Hynad said:
CGI-Quality said:

Outside of in-house optimization, it cannot sustain itself like the Series X, not at a constant 2.23GHz all the time.

That’s not what Cerny said.

So Cerny stated that when the CPU, GPU, I/O and all the other components are 100% pegged that it can sustain boost clocks indefinitely?

Then why have the boost clocks at all and why not just claim them as base clocks? AFAIK Cerny never made that claim.

DonFerrari said:

The source for some assets being hundred time on HDD was given during the GDC talk itself. but i got one for you

Not that the exact number is relevant

On the BC logic on chip, theoretically thhat is what PS5 done for PS4.

Fair call. Thank you.
I think you will find that the majority of data is from uncompressed audio... Rather than duplicated data.

alexxonne said:
Pemalite said:

Teraflops isn't FP16/32 Integers. It's floating point, not integers. Wow.

You see "FP" stands for Floating Point... 16 is half precision, 32 is full. Integers means whole number of precision and not a fraction of it.  You are trying to debate things out of your understanding. State facts not your rants.

The hilarious part I find in all of this is how oblivious you are to the fact that Integer and Floating Point are different... At-least this time you have attempted to make the distinction, perhaps you were confused or didn't convery yourself earlier? Who knows.

Integers can also have different degrees of precision like INt4, INT8, INT16 and so forth.

Either way... Educate yourself on the difference between Integer or Floating Point before we take this discussion any further, otherwise it's pointless if you cannot grasp basic computing fundamentals.

The more you know.

alexxonne said:

Teraflops are not a standard, not even in the same architecture. It is a measurement that depends on the socket cores and cycle operations a unit has. The more cores or higher clock you have the grater performance you will get. But all will be dependent in how many floating operation per cycle a processing unit can achieve

Teraflops is a standard. It's a standard that represents single precision floating point at it's basic form.

It's generally a theoretical, not a real-world denominator, but benchmarks exist that will provide a real-world extrapolation.

alexxonne said:

The only thing true being the same in the calculation is when you have the same architecture; meaning equal floating point operation per cycle operations, so with the given clock and cores, you can easily calculate performance across variants using the same architecture. But once you change the GPU architecture, the brand, or the unit generation; every variable changes the peak theoretical performance.

Except that idea falls flat on it's face when you start throwing other aspects into the equation.

Take a Geforce 1030... A DDR4 and GDDR5 variant exists, the Geforce 1030 even in floating point tasks will sometimes perform only half as fast.
We can duplicate this with the Radeon 7750 DDR3 vs GDDR5 and so on and so forth.

alexxonne said:

This is due to new features being built-in that enhances processing. Another example is by adding a ray tracing buffer to a GPU, this will lead to better FPS performance with touching Tflops calculation. So TFLOPS calculation across Devices ARE NOT THE SAME. ++++For Christ sake READ.++++

And to my understanding kid is not a bad word. Used in the context to denote poor judgement. Not an offense term.

Ray Tracing requires some form of computer. If it uses floating point, it uses teraflops.
If it uses integers, then it uses integers... Because you seem to be an "expert" in the field who is all-knowing, tell me. What is it?

Teraflops is the same regardless of device. It's theoretical.

And using "kid" in the context you were using it in, is a derogatory term, either way, don't argue that point, move on.

alexxonne said:

Pemalite said:

Apparently you don't have an understanding of how backwards compatibility is achieved on the Xbox One.
If you think Microsoft is doing pure emulation... You are highly mistaken.

Xbox one GPU was made with a some legacy features, but not all of them. It was the sole reason backwards compatibility wasn't available at launch. It was a half cooked idea. It took years for Microsoft to be able and emulate the other features in software not available in legacy hardware. In fact they had to embed the whole 360 operating system into the xbox one to be able and do it. Where are your facts?

I have had these debates before and provided the evidence.

So where are your facts?

Microsoft isn't using pure emulation to get Xbox 360 and Original Xbox games running on the Xbox One. Those are the facts.

alexxonne said:

360 emulation in PC is poor because there are no good programmers interested in it, no even for OG xbox. True, some people have been working for years on the libraries and instruction set for those systems, but not much more luck than that. PS3 emulator is great simply because it has a very good programmer devoted to achieve true ps3 emulation in PC, simple as that. PS3 is a very complex system and its CPU is not an ordinary one, technically speaking is still more advanced than ps4 or xbox one cpus; notice i didn't say not faster but advanced. The architecture was so much better that audio processing is way better than what the ps4 is capable of, in addition, even the CPU could be used to assist the GPU for graphics workload. Neither PS4 or Xbox one had these features. Where are your facts?

Xbox 360 emulation is poor, not because people aren't interested in it... But because of a myriad of reasons.

You are quick to throw out the "facts" word but not willing to pony up evidence.

The Cell CPU is actually a very simple-in-order core design... It was "complex" not because of the instructions that need to be interpreted or translated, but due to the sheer number of cores and load balancing those, which when it comes time for emulation... Makes emulation much easier verses a monolithic core design.

Audio processing on PS3 is better than PS4? Better provide the evidence for that... Or your facts are just whack.

CPU couldn't be used to assist for GPU workloads? I guess all those draw calls just happened out of thin air... I guess post-process filters like morphological AA on the CPU never happened and more. - You will need to provide the evidence the CPU didn't assist the GPU... Otherwise your facts are just whack.

alexxonne said:

About the audio, well this is very subjective matter, but i don't want the ps5 system to cost 100 more, just to pay the research of an audio module, that may or may not deliver a better immersive experience. I do enjoy good audio and audiophiles may have something here for them, but I'm not one of them. I have my doubts. And the goal for the ps5 should be achieving a better product(feature and performance wise) while being the cheaper solution. The research putted into this could have been used for BC of PS1/PS2 games and if possible PS3 as well. PS5 specs only brings me PS3 memories.

Don't give two hoots about cost. Give me the best, ditch the rest.

Price hasn't been revealed, might not be cheaper than Xbox Series X. (Another fact from me... To you.)

alexxonne said:

Truth is PS5 will have 10.28 Tflops in boost mode vs XBOX Sx 12.1 Tflops in fixed mode.  PS5 standard performance (with no boost) should be are around producing 9Tflops according to early leaks. So at the end PS5 will have 18%(best) to 25%(worst) lesser graphics capabilities (vector processing) than XBOX SX. Boost mode may be different than PC but it will affect performance the same. This will translate into fewer graphical intensive features such as ray tracing. I wonder how many ray trays PS5 can support at 4k60 vs XBOX SX, I put all my money that if the current PS5 is the final product Microsoft will end with an advantage. The only thing that benefits Sony is the SSD technology behind the system. True, textures and maps will almost be immediately available to be cached by the GPU, but processing them is an entire different story. How much the GPU will handle before it chokes and underclocks is key to achieve a better experience. Just take a cheap laptop with a SSD drive and try to run an old game vs an old laptop with good specs and a lame hard drive, you will find that no matter how fast textures loads, if the GPU can't handle the workload the performance is gonna stall, being the old laptop better and more stable. At the end, multi-platform games will not differ that much. But exclusive games in Xbox SX will outmatch PS5 exclusives easier due to brute performance and more available resources from CPU/GPU. It will depend in the programing magic and support that Sony can give to its first party studios to be on par or better than XBOX XS. Facts.

I think the Pro's and Con's of each console are well documented at this point.

alexxonne said:
Pemalite said:

Your love for any company is irrelevant... And with all due respect... I honestly don't care.

Pemalite, your preferences are respected bot not shared, not with me nor anyone. Preferences are an individual matter. Other people preferences should not be bothering you. So I don't understand you attention to it. So...Whatever.

Nice try turning it around. Other peoples preferences do not bother me.

Did you not read the part where I said I honestly don't care?

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