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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 Confirmed Backward Compatibility

Biggerboat1 said:
DonFerrari said:

I read the thread at the time it was made.

the 250,000 Million Yen is for PSN, which is bigger than the profit of all of Nintendo.

You may not like it, but that is how it is.

Can you link to PSN profit? If you can do that and it proves your point then I'll concede (fair is fair)

The link I gave you was the estimative made within that thread of the PSN profit, as far as I know Sony haven't break down profit per product, just per segment.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Can you link to PSN profit? If you can do that and it proves your point then I'll concede (fair is fair)

The link I gave you was the estimative made within that thread of the PSN profit, as far as I know Sony haven't break down profit per product, just per segment.

An estimate made within a forum thread isn't really sufficient evidence in my book...



taus90 said:

Thats the point even going by the GCN specs we can speculate what will be the performance limitation for NAVI, but still a huge part of the development for Navi is still unknown the only leak I can find on the internet regarding the development is that AMD was looking to improve Geometry engine, which has been problematic area for GCN. 

Indeed. The Geometry Engines have been a bit of sticking point for AMD... The irony is, they beat nVidia to the Tessellation game by 9-10 years and yet nVidia's Polymorph engines have consistently beaten AMD to the punch.

In saying that, Graphics Core Next has some serious limitations, so I doubt AMD will go past 4 Geometry Engines, but will likely increase each individual Geometry Engines capabilities, which AMD has been doing consistently with almost every Graphics Core Next update.

taus90 said:

And I don't remember the article or the year but it was i think 2018 interview where AMD CEO Lisa Su revealed that more than half of the staff from RTG were redirected from Vega on to improving Navi and that it was particularly being designed for Sony, It could be a possibility that Sony might have jumped in mid Navi development and suggested some changes of their own (IBM,Cell) , Now what those changes or secret sauce could be is completely unknown.

I think people are looking into it to much.
Yes, Sony likely made some architectural suggestions, but AMD still needs to work within the confines of Graphics Core Next.

The reason for the amount of staff that is dumped on Navi is simple though, Semi-Custom chip designs, aka. Multiple chips for Microsoft, Sony, PC APU's (Desktop and Notebook!), PC GPU's. - There is hundreds of millions of dollars up for grabs.
It's not a small job to pull off all at once... But the financial gains for AMD is absolutely massive, hence the urgency in dumping as much staff onto the project.

taus90 said:

P.S. Wont be Surprised if Ps5 makes an appearance at Navi Reveal on July 7

I agree. Also can't wait!

DonFerrari said:

Hey I know you and CGI were being conservative and mindfull on your expectations at the console releasing @399 without massive losses, thus I said I was joking on seeing Sony troll both of you.

About the Stadia comparison, HW being more than twice as powerfull because of efficiency I understand, but also on real world we have to consider the internet infrastructure for most customers, and in this scenario I would say I see Stadia performing worse than PS4Pro to most customers.

Also happy to be proven wrong. At the end of the day, I am a tech enthusiast, so it's still a win.

DonFerrari said:

I made the question to CGI above, but I also would like to see your input on they having 8GB of HBM2 and 16GB of DDR4. How much impact such different type of RAM and their bandwidhts would have on the balancing and use on the system? Could they use it seemless to have the slower RAM working on the parts that need more memory but lower speed and HBM for the more urgent tasks? Or is that a good way to take on the ineficiency of GCN on needing plenty of memory and bandwidth to keep CUs feed? Also if Sony accepted slightly slower multitasking the 8Gb of RAM for the OS could be increased using the other 16Gb for game right, or perhaps OS doesn't change the RAM but the other apps when initializing get some of the gaming RAM, just like on PS4 some apps will put game in suspension and others will have other apps closed before running.

The main impact will be on the development side of the equation, developers will need to allocate workloads to get the most out of the differing bandwidths and capacities.
They will also need to spend more transistors on additional memory controllers to drive it all, which will also cost power.

In short, it's not impossible, but I don't see it being likely... They would probably be best served going with a single large pool of GDDR6.
Remember... It will also be Ryzen powered... And we all know how much Ryzen loves it's bandwidth!

drkohler said:

No way the OS uses 8GBytes. The streaming buffer currently uses a good chunk of the os, hence the large reserves in the PS4/X1. They crammed the PS3/X360 os into a few megabytes, and that is the target for any console, make the os as small as possible.

Given that the SoC will be largehere will be two different memory bus architectures in the SoC, it's just too big a mess to design and synchronise (the cpus already have the synchrinise penalty built in so you would avoid any additional penalty as much as you can). Maybe even only a 256bit gddr6 interface and some cheap 4-8GByte streaming buffer somewhere downstreams (getting rid of the memory reserves we have now) would be enough for a PS5.

The Xbox 360 managed to get away with 32Mb of Ram for it's OS... The Xbox One wanted 3072MB... And each time the consoles were simply doing more.
More data is being cached to speed up various operations, things like higher quality voice chat, video streaming, multi-tasking were all implemented.

In short, the consoles are becoming more PC-like, which means they need more memory.

I don't think there is an immediate need for more than 4GB for an OS yet though, you can do a surprising amount with that... But let's just wait and see how the cards fall.

But if there is going to be targeted 8k User-Interfaces, then I don't expect the memory usage to be small. - Microsoft will likely use a UI that scales up well, but uses minimal memory, but they are a software/OS engineering giant...



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

The_Liquid_Laser said:

That article has some interesting info indeed.  Here is what I get from a business perspective.


Pros:
-Disc based
-Backwards Compatibility


Cons:
-Powerful (pricey?)
-VR is going to be a priority
-Not releasing this year


So far PS5 is not doing too hot.  It is looking kind of like the PS3, but it may be too early to tell.  If they are smart they will do an early 2020 release, and maybe the VR is mostly talk.  We'll see.

This is nothing like the PS3.  The PS3 was an incredibly expensive console to make. Supposedly, $800+ to make and was sold for $499 as the entry price, meaning Sony was losing over $300 per console. A lot of the price came from pushing the new Blu-ray tech, not from any powerful GPU.  Sure, the Cell was powerful, but because it was 100% custom and hard to develop on, gamers didn't really see the results of that extra $200 the PS3 coat over the 360.   For a year or more, 3rd party games actually looked worse on the more powerful system.

This won't happen with the PS5. Sony is waiting til next year for prices to fall. If they price it at $499, which isn't so bad with 14 years of inflation added in since the PS3, I doubt they would have to subsidize it more than $100.  It's also using slightly customized off the shelf parts, based on the same architecture as the PS4. If it's $50-$100 more than the XB2 because it's more powerful, gamers will see the results day one.



thismeintiel said:

If it's $50-$100 more than the XB2 because it's more powerful, gamers will see the results day one.

Playing hypothetical's... What if it was $50-$100 more expensive than the Xbox 2 because of the NAND and it worked out to have the same/less amount of power?



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

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
thismeintiel said:

If it's $50-$100 more than the XB2 because it's more powerful, gamers will see the results day one.

Playing hypothetical's... What if it was $50-$100 more expensive than the Xbox 2 because of the NAND and it worked out to have the same/less amount of power?

Then gamers are still going to see the difference between them with the much shorter load times, both to begin the game and within the game itself.



thismeintiel said:
Pemalite said:

Playing hypothetical's... What if it was $50-$100 more expensive than the Xbox 2 because of the NAND and it worked out to have the same/less amount of power?

Then gamers are still going to see the difference between them with the much shorter load times, both to begin the game and within the game itself.

There are ways to reduce load times rather than resorting to faster storage subsystems.

Either way, load times haven't really been a contentious issue between consoles anyway.




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

Pemalite said:

Indeed. The Geometry Engines have been a bit of sticking point for AMD... The irony is, they beat nVidia to the Tessellation game by 9-10 years and yet nVidia's Polymorph engines have consistently beaten AMD to the punch.

In saying that, Graphics Core Next has some serious limitations, so I doubt AMD will go past 4 Geometry Engines, but will likely increase each individual Geometry Engines capabilities, which AMD has been doing consistently with almost every Graphics Core Next update.

Nah, AMD just like Nvidia are headed into the direction of mesh/primitive shaders because it's what game developers are falling in love with ... 

Nvidia just like AMD realized that there were better things to spend their transistors on other than higher raw geometry performance and game developers realized that there were better ways to get more geometry performance than overworking the rasterizers ... 



fatslob-:O said:
Pemalite said:

Indeed. The Geometry Engines have been a bit of sticking point for AMD... The irony is, they beat nVidia to the Tessellation game by 9-10 years and yet nVidia's Polymorph engines have consistently beaten AMD to the punch.

In saying that, Graphics Core Next has some serious limitations, so I doubt AMD will go past 4 Geometry Engines, but will likely increase each individual Geometry Engines capabilities, which AMD has been doing consistently with almost every Graphics Core Next update.

Nah, AMD just like Nvidia are headed into the direction of mesh/primitive shaders because it's what game developers are falling in love with ... 

Nvidia just like AMD realized that there were better things to spend their transistors on other than higher raw geometry performance and game developers realized that there were better ways to get more geometry performance than overworking the rasterizers ... 

That is the end goal sure, but geometry engines are still here to stay as many of the latest games (Like Metro) are still pushing them.



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

Pemalite said:
thismeintiel said:

Then gamers are still going to see the difference between them with the much shorter load times, both to begin the game and within the game itself.

There are ways to reduce load times rather than resorting to faster storage subsystems.

Either way, load times haven't really been a contentious issue between consoles anyway.

Any point can be turned into a contentious one. If you have one console loading a game for 25 seconds and the other one is almost instant, that's going to be a big plus. Of course, we'll have to see how Microsoft deals with this issue.

We could end up with two systems that are practically the same and are the same price. Of course, in that situation Sony wins.

Not sure why it made my post look like this. Posting from a phone. Guess I'll fix it when I get home.