Forums - Gaming Discussion - Theory/Prediction: Sony is about to reveal a Portable PS4

How Crazy am I?

You are a Gaming Nostrodomus 15 15.96%
 
What medication are you on? 79 84.04%
 
Total:94

I really hope not



PSN ID: Stokesy 

Add me if you want but let me know youre from this website

Around the Network
Conina said:
Pemalite said:

How do I know? Because architecturally it's not a massive overhaul from Tegra X1. But it does clock higher, it is built on a better fabrication process and does have a couple of extra tricks like enhanced delta colour compression.

As for why Smartphones and Tablets don't use the "superior" Pascal Soc? Well. To be blunt... No one uses nVidia anymore in the Tablet/Smartphone space anymore anyway.
It's very much dominated by Qualcomm... With vertically integrated manufacturers opting for their own solutions like Apple with it's AX line, Samsung with Exynos, Huawei with Kirin... And then you have the likes of Allwinner, Mediatek and Rockchip bringing up the budget rear.

"Not a massive overhaul" doesn't mean that the price is similar. As you say yourself, Tegra X1 wasn't/isn't very popular for smartphones and tablets. So Nvidia was very interested to get a buyers for these SoCs to clear their stock. They probably made Nintendo a good deal for the TX1-SoCs.  

That is an assertion.
We don't know if nVidia had any surplus stock.

But we do know they are fabricating more chips to meet Nintendo's needs.

Conina said:
Pemalite said:

In short... nVidia exited the Phone market entirely as the profit margins and design wins just weren't happening... And has served the declining tablet market with older, outdated designs.
Thus they refocused there efforts on more specialized markets such as Cars, IoT and so on.

Yeah, they refocused their Tegra efforts on the much more profitable specialized car market. Car manufacturers don't have any problems to pay much higher prices for these SoCs... they multiply these costs for their customers anyways and make lots of profits from these "extras".

If Nintendo had said in 2015 (when they were planning the Switch) or in 2016 (when they were manufacturing the Switch) "We want the Tegra X2 instead of the Tegra X1", Nvidias first answer would have been "We are not offering the TX2 for these small form factors, they go in cars and we have more than enough orders for them." If Nintendo insisted, the second answer would have been: "Sure, if you pay as much for them as the car manufacturers. But for the Tegra X1 we can make you a much better price."

Again, you have no proof whatsoever that the price difference for Nintendo would only have been "minimal".

And you have  no proof for any of that either.

From a fabrication standpoint, The Tegra Pascal would be cheaper to manufacture, that's a blatant fact.



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

Here is another reference point where we are at miniaturization of PS4 performance:

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/intel-hades-canyon-nuc


View on YouTube

The new Intel NUC seems to be a bit faster than a standard PS4, but

  • it still needs up to 65 Watt
  • the box is still bigger than a comfortable handheld size
  • the power brick is external and the NUC doesn't include a battery or display
  • it weights 2 pounds
  • it costs $1000 (plus the costs for storage, memory and OS)

So don't expect a handheld with PS4 performance for less than $500 next year.



Conina said:

Here is another reference point where we are at miniaturization of PS4 performance:

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/intel-hades-canyon-nuc

  <SNIP>
View on YouTube

The new Intel NUC seems to be a bit faster than a standard PS4, but

  • it still needs up to 65 Watt
  • the box is still bigger than a comfortable handheld size
  • the power brick is external and the NUC doesn't include a battery or display
  • it weights 2 pounds
  • it costs $1000 (plus the costs for storage, memory and OS)

So don't expect a handheld with PS4 performance for less than $500 next year.

* CPU is several multiples faster.
* GPU is significantly faster.
* Storage is significantly faster.

Ryzen mobile is probably the best representation of what to expect out of AMD's current technology.

And that is 12-25w TDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_accelerated_processing_unit_microprocessors#%22Raven_Ridge%22_(2017)

It's also only 210mm2 die size, so it's not super super super cheap like with some ARM SoC's, but it's also not stupidly expensive.



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

Conina said:

Here is another reference point where we are at miniaturization of PS4 performance:

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/intel-hades-canyon-nuc


View on YouTube

The new Intel NUC seems to be a bit faster than a standard PS4, but

  • it still needs up to 65 Watt
  • the box is still bigger than a comfortable handheld size
  • the power brick is external and the NUC doesn't include a battery or display
  • it weights 2 pounds
  • it costs $1000 (plus the costs for storage, memory and OS)

So don't expect a handheld with PS4 performance for less than $500 next year.

Pemalite said:

* CPU is several multiples faster.
* GPU is significantly faster.
* Storage is significantly faster.

Ryzen mobile is probably the best representation of what to expect out of AMD's current technology.

And that is 12-25w TDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_accelerated_processing_unit_microprocessors#%22Raven_Ridge%22_(2017)

It's also only 210mm2 die size, so it's not super super super cheap like with some ARM SoC's, but it's also not stupidly expensive.

Now this is some good conversation on the topic.

A couple more things to take into consideration.

 

1. The NUC is likely based on a diferent pricing model than a PS4 Portable. Retail price is most likely somewhere between 2x - 3x the cost of components, packaging, and shipping. Teardowns in the months to come will give a clearer picture.

2. The NUC has about 14 additional ports that would not be necissary on a PS4 Portable. PS4 Portable should only require a USB-C port, a Micro SD Slot, and a Nano Sim Slot. Maybe a Headphone jack.

3. The Ryzen Mobile information in Permalite's link are for Raven Ridge, which is 14nm. PS4 Portable would have to be based on 7nm which see improved performance and TDP, along with a smaller die, and more cost reduction. It is the best indication of where we sit with AMD based X86 and Radeon tech for a mobile platform. 

 

We are closer to a PS4 Portable than some here are thinking. I see a lot of people looking at current desktop components as a barometer, but the PS4 does not use desktop parts. I also see people saying that PSP and PS Vita fell short of PS2 and PS3. You have to remember PS2 and PS3 were much different beasts than PS4. PS2 and PS3 went toe to toe with high end PC's on release. PS4 was using a weak mobile CPU and a mid range GPU on release. 

It really is not a question of tech and pricing, but whether Sony will pull the trigger. Do they want to strengthen their position in the market, or do they sit on a single golden goose and prey the market never changes? I hope they take advantage of this current position, and expand the business, so they can be more flexable, depeneding on where technology takes us.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

Around the Network
KBG29 said:

We are closer to a PS4 Portable than some here are thinking. I see a lot of people looking at current desktop components as a barometer, but the PS4 does not use desktop parts. I also see people saying that PSP and PS Vita fell short of PS2 and PS3. You have to remember PS2 and PS3 were much different beasts than PS4. PS2 and PS3 went toe to toe with high end PC's on release. PS4 was using a weak mobile CPU and a mid range GPU on release. 

It really is not a question of tech and pricing, but whether Sony will pull the trigger. Do they want to strengthen their position in the market, or do they sit on a single golden goose and prey the market never changes? I hope they take advantage of this current position, and expand the business, so they can be more flexable, depeneding on where technology takes us.

We are maybe a step closer, not much more than that. Power efficiency (problem), onboard memory (problem) and sizing (problem) are all important factors.

Dismissing price is short sighted. Not only because price is a major factor in whether Sony pulls the trigger on this but because it aint going to be cheap. And there is no evidence that a portable PS4 is going to expand their market.

Like, how big is this magical market of ppl who haven't/ wont buy a PS4 for the sole reason its not in a portable form?

PS4 sales show that the market isnt going away anytime soon. Placing their bets on PS5/ streaming/ VR is easily safer for Sony than going with a portable SKU.



Pemalite said:
Conina said:

* CPU is several multiples faster.
* GPU is significantly faster.
* Storage is significantly faster.

Ryzen mobile is probably the best representation of what to expect out of AMD's current technology.

And that is 12-25w TDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_accelerated_processing_unit_microprocessors#%22Raven_Ridge%22_(2017)

It's also only 210mm2 die size, so it's not super super super cheap like with some ARM SoC's, but it's also not stupidly expensive.

The 2500U uses like ~25-26 watts in laptop systems, when playing games.

If it was die-shrunk to 7nm, and ran PS4 games at 720p, do you think it would be able to do so?
And would people want a portable that played PS4 games @720p?

https://www.techpowerup.com/242148/globalfoundries-7-nm-to-enable-up-to-2-7x-smaller-dies-5-ghz-cpus

"While a move from 14 nm to 7 nm was expected to provide, at the very best, a halving in the actual size of a chip manufactured in 7 nm compared to 14 nm, Gary Patton is now saying that the are should actually be reduced by up to 2.7 times the original size. To put that into perspective, AMD's 1000 series processors on the Zeppelin die and 14 nm process, which come in at 213 mm² for the full, 8-core design, could be brought down to just 80 mm² instead."

 

A 70-80 mm² 2500U inside a portable *might* be able to run PS4 games (8threads ~1.2 Tflops) at 720p.
Not sure what memory solution would be possible, to allow this though (but again if your running 720p instead of 1080p, memory bandwidth usage isnt nearly as high).
 



I don't even know if it's possible to make a ps4 portable at this point if you don't want to make it cost a $1000.



KBG29 said:

1. The NUC is likely based on a diferent pricing model than a PS4 Portable. Retail price is most likely somewhere between 2x - 3x the cost of components, packaging, and shipping. Teardowns in the months to come will give a clearer picture.

Chip companies like Intel, AMD, nVidia and so on tend to try to go for 60% profit margin at a minimum. Ironically... That was also the rough profit margin on Ryzen which has pushed AMD into the green.

Now semi-custom designs like what is featured in consoles tends to have a different pricing model thanks to various agreements.

KBG29 said:

3. The Ryzen Mobile information in Permalite's link are for Raven Ridge, which is 14nm. PS4 Portable would have to be based on 7nm which see improved performance and TDP, along with a smaller die, and more cost reduction. It is the best indication of where we sit with AMD based X86 and Radeon tech for a mobile platform.

Hence why I stipulated AMD's "current" technology. ;)


KBG29 said:

We are closer to a PS4 Portable than some here are thinking. I see a lot of people looking at current desktop components as a barometer, but the PS4 does not use desktop parts. I also see people saying that PSP and PS Vita fell short of PS2 and PS3. You have to remember PS2 and PS3 were much different beasts than PS4. PS2 and PS3 went toe to toe with high end PC's on release. PS4 was using a weak mobile CPU and a mid range GPU on release.

In multiple different aspects, mobile technology has even surpassed the Playstation 4, especially in regards to the CPU.

 

twintail said:

Dismissing price is short sighted. Not only because price is a major factor in whether Sony pulls the trigger on this but because it aint going to be cheap. And there is no evidence that a portable PS4 is going to expand their market.

I dunno... Is a Playstation 4 portable possible right now? Shit yes.
Is a Playstation 4 portable affordable right now? That's up for debate.

JRPGfan said:

The 2500U uses like ~25-26 watts in laptop systems, when playing games.

 

I think you are missing the point. The 2500U's CPU is still vastly superior to what is in the Playstation 4. It can be scaled back farther.

Plus the TDP is configurable, it can come under 25-26w, OEM's can implement the chip in different ways with different power states and voltage scaling to reduce power consumption. Plus better binning also helps.

JRPGfan said:

If it was die-shrunk to 7nm, and ran PS4 games at 720p, do you think it would be able to do so?
And would people want a portable that played PS4 games @720p?

Even a drop to "12nm" (If we can call it that) would bring significant gains.

720P needs to die.

JRPGfan said:

A 70-80 mm² 2500U inside a portable *might* be able to run PS4 games (8threads ~1.2 Tflops) at 720p.

Here we go again... You clearly don't understand flops or how it's presented.
The number of flops is irrelevant. I say it again... Irrelevant.

The number of threads is also irrelevant.

JRPGfan said:

Not sure what memory solution would be possible, to allow this though (but again if your running 720p instead of 1080p, memory bandwidth usage isnt nearly as high).

The Playstation 4's GPU is old, slow and inefficient.
You do not need the same amount of Bandwidth to achieve the same result.



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

Pemalite said:
Conina said:

"Not a massive overhaul" doesn't mean that the price is similar. As you say yourself, Tegra X1 wasn't/isn't very popular for smartphones and tablets. So Nvidia was very interested to get a buyers for these SoCs to clear their stock. They probably made Nintendo a good deal for the TX1-SoCs.  

That is an assertion.
We don't know if nVidia had any surplus stock.

But we do know they are fabricating more chips to meet Nintendo's needs.

Conina said:

Yeah, they refocused their Tegra efforts on the much more profitable specialized car market. Car manufacturers don't have any problems to pay much higher prices for these SoCs... they multiply these costs for their customers anyways and make lots of profits from these "extras".

If Nintendo had said in 2015 (when they were planning the Switch) or in 2016 (when they were manufacturing the Switch) "We want the Tegra X2 instead of the Tegra X1", Nvidias first answer would have been "We are not offering the TX2 for these small form factors, they go in cars and we have more than enough orders for them." If Nintendo insisted, the second answer would have been: "Sure, if you pay as much for them as the car manufacturers. But for the Tegra X1 we can make you a much better price."

Again, you have no proof whatsoever that the price difference for Nintendo would only have been "minimal".

And you have  no proof for any of that either.

From a fabrication standpoint, The Tegra Pascal would be cheaper to manufacture, that's a blatant fact.

Except Nvidia won't work on your ps4 portable