By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - What do yo think will be the hardware specifications of PS5 if it arrives arround 2019-2020?

KBG29 said:

I can get on board with on board storage =). I have no problem grabbing USB3.1 Gen 2 extrenal SSD to expand the storage. If they left an open M.2 NVMe slot inside similar to the PS2's HDD bay, that would be the ultimate to me. 

Having some form of Soild State Storage in PS5 is IMO the most important next gen feature. HDD's have been to slow for 2 generations now, it is time we get rid of that bottleneck.

Its just that m.2 ssds will not be beneficial to consoles. So it makes no sense that they add it in.

Games aren't being bottle necked by the speeds of SATA 3 SSDs. Say a HDD takes 20 secs to load al the assets of a level in a game. Switching rom that (~150MB/s) to an SSD (~500MB/s) could drop that to around 10 secs. If we put in an M.2 nvme SSD (~2000MB/s) we only see those speeds improve by about 1/2 secs.... why?

Thats because the SATA SSD was not limited by its speed to begin with. Its limited by its seek times which is basically identical to that of an m.2 drive.



Around the Network
Intrinsic said:
KBG29 said:

I can get on board with on board storage =). I have no problem grabbing USB3.1 Gen 2 extrenal SSD to expand the storage. If they left an open M.2 NVMe slot inside similar to the PS2's HDD bay, that would be the ultimate to me. 

Having some form of Soild State Storage in PS5 is IMO the most important next gen feature. HDD's have been to slow for 2 generations now, it is time we get rid of that bottleneck.

Its just that m.2 ssds will not be beneficial to consoles. So it makes no sense that they add it in.

Games aren't being bottle necked by the speeds of SATA 3 SSDs. Say a HDD takes 20 secs to load al the assets of a level in a game. Switching rom that (~150MB/s) to an SSD (~500MB/s) could drop that to around 10 secs. If we put in an M.2 nvme SSD (~2000MB/s) we only see those speeds improve by about 1/2 secs.... why?

Thats because the SATA SSD was not limited by its speed to begin with. Its limited by its seek times which is basically identical to that of an m.2 drive.

I would like the M.2 format just for the massive size reduction, and the cleanliness it would have over needing an external drive. You can use both NVMe and SATA in the M.2 formfactor, and one port is compatable with both formats.

Also, yes seek times are a big reason when we are only loading 5 - 8 GB. With 32 or 64GB of RAM that extra speed and larger files will make a much bigger difference. I still think their is a lot of understimating going on here with RAM on PS5. Their is this strange idea that we don't need much more RAM, that is far, far from the truth. Cost is the biggest factor as to how much they can add, but their will never not need more and faster memory. Whether PS5 has 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, or 128GB of RAM, you can be damn sure devs will use every bit of it. 



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

Intrinsic said:

I guess no matter how fast ssd prices fall its still cheaper to just dolder the nand flash chips on the board regardless. On the plus side they could tailor the speed of such a set up. And technically having the console ship with 1TB of nand flash but no HDD is still an all inclusive package. Some would even-argue that its cleaner.

1TB would probably only allow 6-8 AAA games, but for those who have really great net and high/no caps, it would be a savings to them. For the casual user, it would probably be just enough to get by, but may also push more customers towards physical game purchases. For everyone else, buying an external and plugging it in couldn't be easier (other than the console having one stock obviously). Being able to lock down the consoles specs as much as possible is always a plus in terms of performance.

KBG29 said:

I can get on board with on board storage =). I have no problem grabbing USB3.1 Gen 2 extrenal SSD to expand the storage. If they left an open M.2 NVMe slot inside similar to the PS2's HDD bay, that would be the ultimate to me. 

Having some form of Soild State Storage in PS5 is IMO the most important next gen feature. HDD's have been to slow for 2 generations now, it is time we get rid of that bottleneck.

ALL ABOARD! Probably not worth the extra cost for the base model. This may be something they could use as premium option for the Pro model whenever it arrived. If if were 2 or 3 years down the road again, M.2 drive sizes would be way up and prices would be much lower. 

KBG29 said:
Intrinsic said:

Its just that m.2 ssds will not be beneficial to consoles. So it makes no sense that they add it in.

Games aren't being bottle necked by the speeds of SATA 3 SSDs. Say a HDD takes 20 secs to load al the assets of a level in a game. Switching rom that (~150MB/s) to an SSD (~500MB/s) could drop that to around 10 secs. If we put in an M.2 nvme SSD (~2000MB/s) we only see those speeds improve by about 1/2 secs.... why?

Thats because the SATA SSD was not limited by its speed to begin with. Its limited by its seek times which is basically identical to that of an m.2 drive.

I would like the M.2 format just for the massive size reduction, and the cleanliness it would have over needing an external drive. You can use both NVMe and SATA in the M.2 formfactor, and one port is compatable with both formats.

Also, yes seek times are a big reason when we are only loading 5 - 8 GB. With 32 or 64GB of RAM that extra speed and larger files will make a much bigger difference. I still think their is a lot of understimating going on here with RAM on PS5. Their is this strange idea that we don't need much more RAM, that is far, far from the truth. Cost is the biggest factor as to how much they can add, but their will never not need more and faster memory. Whether PS5 has 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, or 128GB of RAM, you can be damn sure devs will use every bit of it. 

The cleanliness and size point makes sense, but I just don't see M.2 being enough storage or low enough cost compared to external by then. 

To push for more solid state storage, they will probably have no choice but to hold back on RAM. The opposite way to look at it would be to forget solid state altogether and assume a 2-4TB HDD with 32-64GB of GDDR6.

I guess they could always split the dif and have 250GB flash and 32GB RAM. Separate external USB 3 HDD's. Have enough flash to store at least one major AAA 4k game at a time and then have the RAM pull from that? I dunno, where's Cerny when you need him?



EricHiggin said: 

The cleanliness and size point makes sense, but I just don't see M.2 being enough storage or low enough cost compared to external by then. 

To push for more solid state storage, they will probably have no choice but to hold back on RAM. The opposite way to look at it would be to forget solid state altogether and assume a 2-4TB HDD with 32-64GB of GDDR6.

I guess they could always split the dif and have 250GB flash and 32GB RAM. Separate external USB 3 HDD's. Have enough flash to store at least one major AAA 4k game at a time and then have the RAM pull from that? I dunno, where's Cerny when you need him?

32GB of Ram is just too much! I am beginning to wonder if you know how Ram in games are utilized. Picture this, you get into a level in a game, all the assets of the game that are loaded into memory (from that 50GB or say with next gen 80GB game) are only the assets that the game needs in memory for that particular level. 

They aren't loading the entire game into Ram......



Intrinsic said:
EricHiggin said: 

The cleanliness and size point makes sense, but I just don't see M.2 being enough storage or low enough cost compared to external by then. 

To push for more solid state storage, they will probably have no choice but to hold back on RAM. The opposite way to look at it would be to forget solid state altogether and assume a 2-4TB HDD with 32-64GB of GDDR6.

I guess they could always split the dif and have 250GB flash and 32GB RAM. Separate external USB 3 HDD's. Have enough flash to store at least one major AAA 4k game at a time and then have the RAM pull from that? I dunno, where's Cerny when you need him?

32GB of Ram is just too much! I am beginning to wonder if you know how Ram in games are utilized. Picture this, you get into a level in a game, all the assets of the game that are loaded into memory (from that 50GB or say with next gen 80GB game) are only the assets that the game needs in memory for that particular level. 

They aren't loading the entire game into Ram......

I think we just have to wait and see. We already have PS4 and XBO games pushing 100GB, even more with XBO X titles that have 4K texture packs. Next gen titles should be offering a significant leap in the size and density of levels, and everything will have even high resolution assets than what XBO X is getting. 

IMO 32GB should be the bare minimum for them to even consider putting the PS5 name on a console. They have to have a significant enough leap to not piss off PS4 and PS4 Pro gamers when they start making exclusive PS5 titles. If PS5 is not wowing people, then they could very easily get major backlash from consumers that feel like they are being forced to upgrade, as opposed to upgraing due to a worthwhile increase in technology.



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
Intrinsic said:

32GB of Ram is just too much! I am beginning to wonder if you know how Ram in games are utilized. Picture this, you get into a level in a game, all the assets of the game that are loaded into memory (from that 50GB or say with next gen 80GB game) are only the assets that the game needs in memory for that particular level. 

They aren't loading the entire game into Ram.......

If they were loading the entire game into RAM then you would need at least 50GB+ available for AAA games in PS4, not 5GB. While I'm not a hardware/software engineer, it does seem that less RAM and at least some solid state would be a better idea. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the only option or the right option based on all existing factors though.

I'm sure more game assets could be loaded into a much larger pool of RAM, it's just that if you end up requiring something that's not in the RAM at the present time, then it's off to the slower HDD to pull that data instead of much faster on board solid state. I would also guess that the less solid state and the more RAM on board, the higher the cost to manufacture to a certain degree (too much solid state would be costly as well), and could also still mean longer loading times at some points, defeating the purpose.

KBG29 said:

I think we just have to wait and see. We already have PS4 and XBO games pushing 100GB, even more with XBO X titles that have 4K texture packs. Next gen titles should be offering a significant leap in the size and density of levels, and everything will have even high resolution assets than what XBO X is getting. 

IMO 32GB should be the bare minimum for them to even consider putting the PS5 name on a console. They have to have a significant enough leap to not piss off PS4 and PS4 Pro gamers when they start making exclusive PS5 titles. If PS5 is not wowing people, then they could very easily get major backlash from consumers that feel like they are being forced to upgrade, as opposed to upgraing due to a worthwhile increase in technology.

While I guess anything is possible, the fact that the consoles are basically PC's in a box now, means they will most likely try to operate as close to PC's as possible without completely losing their console DNA. PS4 having 8GB of RAM makes sense if you take into account that 8GB is the max you get with AMD consumer grade graphics cards today/mid gen. When PS5 rolls around, 16GB-24GB GDDR6 will most likely end up being the consumer grade max by the time it's mid gen as well. 

If you take for instance PS4 AAA games being around 50-60GB on average, and PS4 having about 10% available to those games with 5-6GB of RAM, then even if PS5 games turned out to be 150GB-200GB, at 10% you would end up needing around 16-20GB of RAM. 32-64GB does seem quite high, but only in comparison to how PS4 was designed. That doesn't necessarily mean they will follow that same design for PS5, but right now it's hard to see them straying too far from it. If they were to drop mass storage altogether, that does free up some space and some money to potentially be used elsewhere for parts.

Who really and truly thought we were going to end up having 8GB of GDDR5 in the PS4 though? 



Apparently, Cerny got awarded a patent on backwards compatibility testing less than 2 weeks ago. Not sure if it's related to the PS5, but I thought it was worth sharing here.



Intrinsic said:
EricHiggin said: 

XB1X having 12GB of RAM leads me to believe PS5 will have a min of 16GB. This would probably require 4GB of dedicated separate OS RAM for future proofing, so 20GB total. A 20-24GB pool wouldn't be out of the question either.

I've been thinking about this.... say an 8Gb (2GB) module of GDDR6 Ram in 2020 costs around $9 (GDDR5 costs around $6.50 for 1GB right now). They would need $72 for 16GB of GDDR6 Ram. And the cost of 4GB of GDDR6 ram would be around $18. Now the question, would it be better (cheaper and less complicated) to just pay the $18 for the extra Ram so they end up with 20GB of GGDDR6 (which also has the benefit of allowing them also hit a higher peak memory bandwidth) or is opting for 16GB GDDR6 and 4GB of a separate type of Ram just for the OS the better option? I'm beginning to think the former is the way to go.

It might even be cheaper to have more memory/chips so you can use a narrower bus, simpler memory controller and power delivery.

Can't just look at the individual chip prices and come to a conclusion sadly.

Errorist76 said:
KBG29 said: 

Never really thought about that. With all of the scalability being implemented into the PSOS and development tools, they could definitly upclock the CPU and GPU in the Super Slim and the Pro Slim. Another new possibility enters the mix.

Sony would never alienate their early buyers like that.

Except they have before with the Playstation 4 Pro.

Microsoft and Sony are for-profit businesses, they don't actually give a crap about the individual consumer... And that is fine as long as business interests align with our own.. And absolute bullshit when they don't. (Playstation 3, Xbox One.)

Trumpstyle said:

Why original ps4 uses 256mb ddr3 I don't know but probably of similiar problem.

It is exactly the same reason.

"OS and background tasks". - The Pro probably used the extra DDR3 DRAM for a higher resolution UI... Which the Xbox One X doesn't do. And maybe offloaded a few more processes.

There are Pro's and Con's to each approach.

Trumpstyle said:

I dont expect sony to go with the fastest gddr6 memory speed because of cost and power consumption. On original ps4 they didn't

either go for the fastest gddr5.

The Playstation 4 used equivalent mid-range GDDR5 clocks/bus size and thus bandwidth for the time.
Of course AMD, nVidia and DRAM specs improved over time allowing for GDDR5 to be pushed harder, that's called progress.

But if you think that 176 GB/s was trivial for the time the console released... You are greatly mistaken.
For comparative sake the Radeon 7970, AMD's fastest GPU at that time had a 288GB/s worth of bandwidth, but that was on a memory bus 50% wider and a GPU significantly more expensive than what could be in a console at the time.

EricHiggin said:

A single large pool makes a lot of sense, but with Pro they decided to add a separate GB of DDR3, which doesn't really seem like enough to begin with, and strays from the PS4 single pool of RAM, so I dunno which way they will go. XB1X took full advantage of the RAM pool, but it also came at a price.

The base Playstation 4 also had a chunk of separate DDR3. So it had split memory pools.

I always feel people neglect mentioning that.

Intrinsic said:

I guess no matter how fast ssd prices fall its still cheaper to just dolder the nand flash chips on the board regardless. On the plus side they could tailor the speed of such a set up. And technically having the console ship with 1TB of nand flash but no HDD is still an all inclusive package. Some would even-argue that its cleaner.

The issue with NAND is you can't just drop a single chip on the board and call it a day... You need multiple memory chips to speed up memory transactions by taking advantage of parallelism.

KBG29 said:

If they left an open M.2 NVMe slot inside similar to the PS2's HDD bay, that would be the ultimate to me.



EricHiggin said:

PS4 having 8GB of RAM makes sense if you take into account that 8GB is the max you get with AMD consumer grade graphics cards today/mid gen.

Maybe the PS4 could start using all that 8GB of Ram for graphics then. Oh wait...


Aura7541 said:

Apparently, Cerny got awarded a patent on backwards compatibility testing less than 2 weeks ago. Not sure if it's related to the PS5, but I thought it was worth sharing here.

Very interesting. Could be PS4 or PS5 related though.
Is Sony looking into Backwards compatibility thanks to Microsoft's successes in this area? Wait and find out more at 5.



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

Pemalite said: 

 

Intrinsic said:

I guess no matter how fast ssd prices fall its still cheaper to just dolder the nand flash chips on the board regardless. On the plus side they could tailor the speed of such a set up. And technically having the console ship with 1TB of nand flash but no HDD is still an all inclusive package. Some would even-argue that its cleaner.

The issue with NAND is you can't just drop a single chip on the board and call it a day... You need multiple memory chips to speed up memory transactions by taking advantage of parallelism.


 

Oh i know, same thing with Ram, or running storage in a RAID 0..... 



Pemalite said:
Aura7541 said:

Apparently, Cerny got awarded a patent on backwards compatibility testing less than 2 weeks ago. Not sure if it's related to the PS5, but I thought it was worth sharing here.

Very interesting. Could be PS4 or PS5 related though.
Is Sony looking into Backwards compatibility thanks to Microsoft's successes in this area? Wait and find out more at 5.

There are a whole lot of claims when you scroll down the page. Have any idea what those claims mean if they are of any significance?