| the-pi-guy said: 1.) We don't know what the base clock is. We don't even know if there even is a base clock, because the paradigm for how the system chooses a frequency is completely opposite of the norm. 2.) From Cerny's comments, we know it spends the majority of it's time near the max frequencies. More than likely it'll be closer to a 10 TF machine for games. |
Actual PS5 (10.28 TF / 2.23ghz gpu) = 4.609865 performance factor
Leaked PS5 Oberon specs (9.2 TF/ 2ghz gpu). Using the actual PS5 performance factor (2ghz x 4.609865) it gives 9.2TF, the same as the leaks. They are the same. You are in denial, if you don't see it, but you have the right to choose so.
That is why in my opinion Cerny's words were technobabble, because at the end neither of the words spoken matters. Is about performance. Just that.
I remember when Hyper-threading came for P4 CPUs, benchmarks were through the roofs. I bought one the 1st day at a great cost. At the end a cheap Athlon cpu handled games better, because games engines weren't optimized for HT. It took years for developers to properly enhance them and OS to properly manage threads, specially when multi core cpus started to appear.
If Cerny wants to justify the lack of performance by using a variable freq. and you are ok with that, great. But I'm not, to me is a cheap excuse.
If they intended to deliver developers information then they're very late. Developers are already building games.
The conference was made to all in general. Hell it came from the Playstation Blogspot.
Last edited by alexxonne - on 02 April 2020
