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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - (Update) Rumor: PlayStation 5 will be using Navi 9 (more powerful than Navi 10), new update Jason Schreier said Sony aim more then 10,7 Teraflop

 

How accurate this rumored is compared to the reality

Naah 26 35.62%
 
Its 90% close 14 19.18%
 
it's 80% close 8 10.96%
 
it's 70% close 5 6.85%
 
it's 50% close 13 17.81%
 
it's 30% close 7 9.59%
 
Total:73
Intrinsic on 17 March 2019
Bofferbrauer2 said:

But less so then this gen.

This gen AMD was pretty dependent on the income from the consoles until 2018 (took a while until Ryzen could really take off), which means Sony and Microsoft had a very dominant position to haggle the prices. Now, with Ryzen and Epyc being huge hits and the money rolling in, they won't be inclined to lower the prices nearly as much as they did this gen - simply because they don't have to anymore.

Really, the rumors were that AMD was gaining less then 1$ per chip sold for the PS4 and XBO consoles in 2016 and 2017, and they only agreed to such prices since they had to buy enough wafers from GlobalFoundries, which otherwise would have cost them even more.

But now that's not a problem anymore, and AMD is sustaining itself from the CPU market alone by now, giving them a much better position in the price negotiations then they were last gen. AMD will want to make some bucks out of the deal this time around and not just use them to stay afloat, that's for sure.

Besides, the official prices you'll see are always only valid if you buy at least 1000 of them, not for single chips. Hence why the price for the consumer varies quite a bit between the different shops and suppliers. Also, using the prices from some leaks for the Zen2/Ryzen 3 as basis is very flawed, especially since after just a little scrutiny those prices are impossibly low (AMD wouldn't be able to clear their stock of hardware anymore the moment they'd announce them, undercutting their existing hardware by over 50% in most cases).

Thats definately not th case. Ever heard the saying "the first chip cost $5B and every other one cost $5" The actual cost of  processor is less tha $10 on a material cost basis, what is expensive is the costof the technology that goes into making those chips. But even then its owhere near as bad as you desibe.

Sony/MS can be paying anywhere from $40 - $150 to AMD for each APU. Just know AMD makes over or around half of whatever they are paying as profit for themselves while the other half goes to whichever foundry makes them.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 17 March 2019
Intrinsic said:

Its not really an apples to apples comparison though.... cause I/O in a dedicated CPu and I/O in an APu are kinda two very difeent things.

How about this... 


 

Which is why I decided not to include I/O. Zen 3 (My mistake, didn't mean Ryzen 3 specifically) has the I/O on a separate chip remember.

Intrinsic said:

AMD Ryzen 3 3600G (7nm)

 

  • 8C/16T 
  • CPU clock 3.2GHz base/ 4Ghz Boost
  • Navi 20CU GPU
  • TDP 95W
  • MSRP (rumored) ~$225
AMD Ryzen 3 3600 (7nm)
  • 8C/16T
  • CPU clock 3.2Ghz base/ 4.4Ghz boost
  • TDP 65W
  • MSRP ~$200
I think that is where we need to start looking at things from. This is the closest thing to an apples to apples comparison we will see. Here are my takeaways.
  • TDP for a spec of the chip (at least the CPU)  is only 95W for CPU and a 20CU GPU. But thats to accomodate a CPU that is designed to clock as high as 4Ghz.
  • Addition of a 20CU Navi GPU (of unknown clock for now) raises TDP of the package by 30W.
When that chip is released later this year, we can then look atthe size of the chip and see where it falls in the whole 200mm2 to 400mm2 range. 

I think for the CPU side of the equation we will probably be looking at a single CCX complex. So probably around 4-6 cores.. Mostly for simplicity sake and have more of the transistor budget spent on GPU functional units and clockrates... Because at the end of the day it is the GPU that draws all the pretty pictures that is used in advertising.

Nozz-A-La said:

Isn't the power consumption and heat level of a 14,2 tf gpu the bigger problem for sony/ms than the price of those components

300w is probably manageable for consoles these days, especially with more exotic cooling solutions like Vapor Chambers.

OdinHades said:

I don't think so. On PC video cards with 8 GB can already be a limiting factor at full HD.

Usually that only happens because of inefficient effects/assets being pushed, I.E. Best graphics regardless of it's hardware requirements.
Consoles tend to be a little more relaxed on that front and usually opt for medium equivalent settings.

In saying that, despite 8GB GPU's sometimes being pushed, PC is pushing past 8GB of system ram these days as well, 16GB is the sweet spot.

OdinHades said:

Those new consoles will want to push 4K textures and we're talking about shared memory here. So I think 24 GB is the minimum for a console to be somewhat relevant in the next 6 years or so. 32 GB would be better. Anything below that will be a serious bottleneck in the future. Not today and not tomorrow, but soon enough.

4k textures have been around for years, even during the 7th gen, texture resolution and display resolution are completely separate.

24GB is a good ballpark, but I think 16GB might be more realistic. That is... 16GB 100% for games, not the OS.

Intrinsic said:

Thats definately not th case. Ever heard the saying "the first chip cost $5B and every other one cost $5" The actual cost of  processor is less tha $10 on a material cost basis, what is expensive is the costof the technology that goes into making those chips. But even then its owhere near as bad as you desibe.

Sony/MS can be paying anywhere from $40 - $150 to AMD for each APU. Just know AMD makes over or around half of whatever they are paying as profit for themselves while the other half goes to whichever foundry makes them.

If a foundry has a ton of orders though, costs per wafer generally increase, which eats into profit margins as well. 7nm is likely to be one of those nodes which are going to have a ton of orders due to mobile rushing towards it as well... But the implosion of the GPU market on PC might lessen that impact somewhat.



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

Intrinsic on 17 March 2019
Pemalite said:

I think for the CPU side of the equation we will probably be looking at a single CCX complex. So probably around 4-6 cores.. Mostly for simplicity sake and have more of the transistor budget spent on GPU functional units and clockrates... 

 

I could be mistaken..... but I think with Ryzen 3 their smallest sized CCX is a 6 core 12 thread chip, in the 3300 series. So I think they lowest they could go is 6 coes in the consoles APU.

If you ask me it sounds about right to me, having 5 usable cores and 10 total threads available for devs and reserving 1 core for the OS will still yield a systems whose CPU will run rings around the jaguar CPU. It would b nice if they went for 8 cores..... but I honestly don't see it happening.

 

If a foundry has a ton of orders though, costs per wafer generally increase, which eats into profit margins as well. 7nm is likely to be one of those nodes which are going to have a ton of orders due to mobile rushing towards it as well... But the implosion of the GPU market on PC might lessen that impact somewhat.

Well thats true. But I think these console manufacturers usually lock in some sort of deal. And For a certain number of chips they will be paying a fixed amount f money, regardless of hat happens in the market.  



eva01beserk on 17 March 2019
Intrinsic said:
Pemalite said: 

Ryzen 3 is about 80mm2 for an 8-core complex at 7nm.
Jaguar is 24.8mm2 for an 8-core complex at 28nm.

That doesn't include things like I/O.

At the end of the day, CPU cores themselves tend to be relatively small anyway, it's everything tacked on to hide bandwidth and latency (I.E. Caches) that drives die sizes of CPU's up.

 

Its not really an apples to apples comparison though.... cause I/O in a dedicated CPu and I/O in an APu are kinda two very difeent things.

How about this... 

AMD Ryzen 3 3600G (7nm)

 

  • 8C/16T 
  • CPU clock 3.2GHz base/ 4Ghz Boost
  • Navi 20CU GPU
  • TDP 95W
  • MSRP (rumored) ~$225
AMD Ryzen 3 3600 (7nm)
  • 8C/16T
  • CPU clock 3.2Ghz base/ 4.4Ghz boost
  • TDP 65W
  • MSRP ~$200
I think that is where we need to start looking at things from. This is the closest thing to an apples to apples comparison we will see. Here are my takeaways.
  • TDP for a spec of the chip (at least the CPU)  is only 95W for CPU and a 20CU GPU. But thats to accomodate a CPU that is designed to clock as high as 4Ghz.
  • Addition of a 20CU Navi GPU (of unknown clock for now) raises TDP of the package by 30W.
When that chip is released later this year, we can then look atthe size of the chip and see where it falls in the whole 200mm2 to 400mm2 range. 

 

I was doubting this rumor. but just looking at this 2 chips wich are off the shelf prices and specs makes me hopeful for sonys custom chip at bulk prices.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk on 17 March 2019
Intrinsic said:
Pemalite said:

I think for the CPU side of the equation we will probably be looking at a single CCX complex. So probably around 4-6 cores.. Mostly for simplicity sake and have more of the transistor budget spent on GPU functional units and clockrates... 

 

I could be mistaken..... but I think with Ryzen 3 their smallest sized CCX is a 6 core 12 thread chip, in the 3300 series. So I think they lowest they could go is 6 coes in the consoles APU.

If you ask me it sounds about right to me, having 5 usable cores and 10 total threads available for devs and reserving 1 core for the OS will still yield a systems whose CPU will run rings around the jaguar CPU. It would b nice if they went for 8 cores..... but I honestly don't see it happening.

 

If a foundry has a ton of orders though, costs per wafer generally increase, which eats into profit margins as well. 7nm is likely to be one of those nodes which are going to have a ton of orders due to mobile rushing towards it as well... But the implosion of the GPU market on PC might lessen that impact somewhat.

Well thats true. But I think these console manufacturers usually lock in some sort of deal. And For a certain number of chips they will be paying a fixed amount f money, regardless of hat happens in the market.  

6 core cpu might be good, but what if they are thinking of a pro 3 years down the line, they can upgrade the gpu but what about the cpu? has to be similar if im not mistaken for compatibility issues. should they have the 8 cores just to be good when the ps5 pro is out?



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 on 17 March 2019
Intrinsic said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

But less so then this gen.

This gen AMD was pretty dependent on the income from the consoles until 2018 (took a while until Ryzen could really take off), which means Sony and Microsoft had a very dominant position to haggle the prices. Now, with Ryzen and Epyc being huge hits and the money rolling in, they won't be inclined to lower the prices nearly as much as they did this gen - simply because they don't have to anymore.

Really, the rumors were that AMD was gaining less then 1$ per chip sold for the PS4 and XBO consoles in 2016 and 2017, and they only agreed to such prices since they had to buy enough wafers from GlobalFoundries, which otherwise would have cost them even more.

But now that's not a problem anymore, and AMD is sustaining itself from the CPU market alone by now, giving them a much better position in the price negotiations then they were last gen. AMD will want to make some bucks out of the deal this time around and not just use them to stay afloat, that's for sure.

Besides, the official prices you'll see are always only valid if you buy at least 1000 of them, not for single chips. Hence why the price for the consumer varies quite a bit between the different shops and suppliers. Also, using the prices from some leaks for the Zen2/Ryzen 3 as basis is very flawed, especially since after just a little scrutiny those prices are impossibly low (AMD wouldn't be able to clear their stock of hardware anymore the moment they'd announce them, undercutting their existing hardware by over 50% in most cases).

Thats definately not th case. Ever heard the saying "the first chip cost $5B and every other one cost $5" The actual cost of  processor is less tha $10 on a material cost basis, what is expensive is the costof the technology that goes into making those chips. But even then its owhere near as bad as you desibe.

Sony/MS can be paying anywhere from $40 - $150 to AMD for each APU. Just know AMD makes over or around half of whatever they are paying as profit for themselves while the other half goes to whichever foundry makes them.

I know that fully well.

That being said, AMD was forced to pay up for a specific amount of wafers from Globalfoundries upfront in 2015, whether they'd actually need them or not (and even pay extra if they produce chips at other foundries). Thus, AMD sold their chips to Sony and Microsoft at the lowest possible price for them to ensure they don't need to pay for unused wafers. However, since GF doesn't have a 7nm process, the deal got eased a lot and the Ryzen/Epyc chips already fulfill it, thus having no need to go as low with the price as they did this gen.



The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

Intrinsic on 17 March 2019
eva01beserk said:

6 core cpu might be good, but what if they are thinking of a pro 3 years down the line, they can upgrade the gpu but what about the cpu? has to be similar if im not mistaken for compatibility issues. should they have the 8 cores just to be good when the ps5 pro is out?

Naaa..... X86 doesn't work that way when it comes to compatibility. They could even have a 4 core CPU and still be fine. When devs make games for these consoles its not like they are writing for CPU 1, 2, 3, 4....etc. They have the bulk of their game code run on one or two cores, then the rest of their CPU code that can be broken up is kinda just dumped on the rest of the cores. Every system esential code is run on the primary 1 or 2 cores.



Intrinsic on 17 March 2019
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I know that fully well.

That being said, AMD was forced to pay up for a specific amount of wafers from Globalfoundries upfront in 2015, whether they'd actually need them or not (and even pay extra if they produce chips at other foundries). Thus, AMD sold their chips to Sony and Microsoft at the lowest possible price for them to ensure they don't need to pay for unused wafers. However, since GF doesn't have a 7nm process, the deal got eased a lot and the Ryzen/Epyc chips already fulfill it, thus having no need to go as low with the price as they did this gen.

Thats not how that happened.... 

AMD had contracted a certain number of chips with GF. This is normal with thee chip contracts for everyone. The issue was that TSCM moved onto a newer process earlier than GF and AMD and its customers needed to be on tat new process.  So even though AMD and their customers had shifted onto a new process AMD was now in breach of contract with GF since they now needed  far fewer wafers from them.

They never were now selling their chips to sony and MS for some bargain bin price. I really don't know where you heard that.



Screenshot on 18 March 2019
BraLoD said:
Mummelmann said:

Pretty much, 24GB is overkill anyway, any game pushing those kinds of assets will require much more overall oomph than a 500$ mainstream device can pull off any time soon.

The rumor says 20GBs for games plus 4GBs of cheaper ram for the OS.

But even so, it'll have 24GBs for games alone.

Is 24GBs overkill for current gen? Of course it is.

Will it be for next gen, I don't think so.

If they release 2020 they'll have to be relevant up until 2026/2027, that's where it'll make the biggest difference.

As soon as next gen releases game development itself will climb another notch and all games will be asking more of their systems than they do now. It's always like this, as soon as the PS5 is out 4K everything will be the baseline for game development, even if we already have 4K for years, the real push start when the new consoles come. Look up to the PC spec bumps when the next gen starts getting to rol, you have probably already noticed it, tho.

So we'll have that big next gen bump in game development itself plus at least 6 years of evolution for the consoles to keep up with and 16GB of RAM suddenly become a bottleneck that consoles would like to avoid.

IMO there is no chance for the PS5 to release with less than 20GBs of RAM (for games), zero.

16 gig is more than enough for 4k. Anything else just adds to the overall cost of the console.



Screenshot on 18 March 2019
OdinHades said:
Mummelmann said:

Pretty much, 24GB is overkill anyway, any game pushing those kinds of assets will require much more overall oomph than a 500$ mainstream device can pull off any time soon.

I don't think so. On PC video cards with 8 GB can already be a limiting factor at full HD. Those new consoles will want to push 4K textures and we're talking about shared memory here. So I think 24 GB is the minimum for a console to be somewhat relevant in the next 6 years or so. 32 GB would be better. Anything below that will be a serious bottleneck in the future. Not today and not tomorrow, but soon enough.

16 gig is more than enough for 4k even on pc.