Pemalite said:
drkohler said:
These posts get longer and longer to digest with all the quoting.
So I ask everyone for just one thing:
Some people think that 2.23GHz is a boost clock and the thing actually runs at a lower clock some/most of the time. It is NOT.
When Cerny mentioned boost in his talk, he meant it in the engineering sense of the word. What they did when testing the SoC, they started with a low frequency and upped the frequency step by step until the gpu was no longer able to function correctly (My guess is a lot of SoCs bit the dust). This gave them the absolute upper clock limit. Then they did the same thing again up to a point where the thermal/power envelope was reached with whatever cooling solutions were tested. Apparently 2.23GHz is the "sweet spot" for the gpu. (Surprisingly the 3.5GHz for the cpu is already problematic due to a particular 256bit command set that needs large amounts of power.)
Stepping up the clock is called boosting the clock in the engineering world. It has nothing to do with "This thing runs at x GHz but we can boost x by y%". |
Nope. Not correct.
Cerny specifically mentioned SmartShift.
The GPU boost clock can certainly be run at 2.23Ghz... Indefinitely. Provided the rest of the system isn't taxed to 100%.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15624/amd-details-renoir-the-ryzen-mobile-4000-series-7nm-apu-uncovered/4
Otherwise it's not a boost, it's a base clock and a failure on Sony's behalf in advertising that particular aspect.
DonFerrari said:
Can't say the audio on PS4 is worse than PS3, but Cerny was clear that they pushed less for audio on PS4 than on PS3 but at PS5 tempest engine they came full on it. He also said that tempest engine is designed similar to SPE (without cache, dump direct on it) so that may be where he understood that the audio on PS3 was better.
And about very few of the data being duplicated that also contradict what Cerny said. He explained that is the reason why even some small patches had to reinstall the whole game, and that because the HDD was slow several of the assets had duplication and that with SSD the file sizes should be a lot smaller.
|
The DSP in the Playstation 4 is based upon AMD's TrueAudio technology, it's a step-up over the PS3's implementation.
Just wanted him to provide the evidence for his claim.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7513/ps4-spec-update-audio-dsp-is-based-on-amds-trueaudio
Patches forcing entire reinstalls of games happens on PC, mostly because enough of the underlaying dataset got changed that you might as well discard the old, for the new.
DonFerrari said:
PC instalation size doesn't disprove it since PC ports are developed to address HDD configurations as default.
|
And the Playstation 4, Xbox One, Playstation 3, OG Xbox, Xbox 360 games aren't!?!?
DonFerrari said:
Pema is the most vocal user on saying Tflops is an useless measure and that even on same architeture you can have lesser Tflop outperform higher because of other aspects of the card. So I guess you aren't understanding his point that Tflop is a direct theoretical maximum that always means the same (so 1 Tflop is always 1 Tflop, instead of a AMD Tflop is 0,6 NVidia Tflop or anything the like) but of course the real world perfomance will vary greatly and that is the gain in efficiency every gen see.
|
  Pretty much... Haha
He is backtracking on his statements now, so nothing to see here.
LudicrousSpeed said:
So you get a performance drop for intense games, whether it’s the CPU for games that heavily utilize the GPU or an actual TFLOP drop for games that utilize the CPU because the GPU needs to be throttled down. You can bicker about exact numbers even though Sony provided none, the person I quoted and myself have the correct understanding of what Cerny was saying.
It remains to be seen how often the system can actually run at full power. Logic would dictate not often, otherwise there would be no need for a boost mode and variable frequencies. Remember this is the same guy who said like 8TF would be required for native 4K. It’s not like he’s infallible.
People smarter or at least more knowledgeable than us on this have said that if MS used the same method of varying frequencies, the XSX could get to like 14.6 TF. They aren’t, because it’s not smart. Sony will either have a very good, very expensive cooking solution in the PS5, or the console will not run at the max frequencies often.
|
It can maintain 2.23Ghz GPU clocks indefinitely, provided that developers have opted not to peg the CPU and I/O at 100%.
Anyone who has played around with a Ryzen notebooks understands this...
Basically the Ryzen notebooks have a 15w TDP. - In an ideal world the CPU and GPU will be given equal split if pegged at 100%. That is 7.5w each.
But if you reduce the CPU demand by 50% by reducing clockrates (which in turn reduces voltages), then you are reducing the CPU's 7.5W TDP to 5W, which means the GPU can increase it's TDP demands from 7.5W to 10W. - Then the GPU can drive up it's clockrates.
That can mean the clockspeed difference of 900Mhz to 1.2GHz.
And it can maintain that indefinitely. - But once you start increasing the CPU load, the CPU is going to want to take some of the GPU's TDP.
Either way, developers will have all of that in mind when building games.
VAMatt said:
Unfortunately, the relative cost of RAM is higher now than it was up until a few years ago. Taking these systems up to 24gb would make a noticeable difference in production costs. So, they've had to figure out how to make do with less (than we might prefer).
|
GDDR6 is relatively new, hence the costs. Which is why me and CGI made accurate predictions on this front years in advance.
 
 
 
 
|
