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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 GDC Reveal and PS5 specs/performance Digital Foundry Video analysis : 3.5 Ghz 8 core Zen 2 CPU along with 10.3 TF RDNA 2 RT capable and 16GB GDDR6 RAM and also super crazy fast 5.5 GB/Second S

 

How do you feel

My brain become bigger su... 21 30.00%
 
I am wet 6 8.57%
 
What did he talked about??? 5 7.14%
 
I want some more info 9 12.86%
 
Total:41
drkohler on 18 March 2020
method114 said:
Vodacixi said:
So... only PS4 backwards compatibility. Well, I guess that settles it. Series X it is.

Also, they shouldn't have advertised this for everyone. This was so technical and so boring... what they were thinking?

They were probably thinking this is a conference for developers so they should center it around that. 

It was a GDC talk. There is no "probably thinking" involved. Bad luck that all the gamerzzzzz are now trying to figure out wat was going on in this talk.



Around the Network
method114 on 18 March 2020
Otter said:
I must say I do prefer the expandable storage storage on Xbox Series X more. I prefer to spend a bit more on made to fit accessories and the XSX memory cards look sleek and take the hassle out of deciding what storage to get (hopefully sony produce a memory card of their own)

I prefer Sonys way simply because it gives me more buying options which means competitive prices. Xbox's way is fine though. Money isn't really a concern for me so I would be fine with either option really.



Nu-13 on 18 March 2020
JRPGfan said:

Yeah! backwards compatibility talks :D
Was waiting for this.

*edit:  he only mentioned the PS4 BC.....   ; _ ;

What other BC were you expecting?  Buying old games digitally inst real BC. Just rereleasing.



JRPGfan on 18 March 2020
DonFerrari said:
within 20% *15% difference between the "Tflop" count, with a lot less CUs at a higher frequency. So price may be a lot smaller and the lost performance may not be that visible.

10,3 vs 12,15

However the GPU parts of the Playstation 5, run at higher speeds.
(which effects other things than just the Tflops numbers)

So differnce is less than 15% imo.

Ram 520 GB/s vs 448 GB/s = ~14%

However I dont think it ll matter, both will run 4k games.



JRPGfan on 18 March 2020
Nu-13 said:
JRPGfan said:

Yeah! backwards compatibility talks :D
Was waiting for this.

*edit:  he only mentioned the PS4 BC.....   ; _ ;

What other BC were you expecting?  Buying old games digitally inst real BC. Just rereleasing.

It doesnt rule out PS1,PS2,PS3.... but if it could do that, I expect he would have mentioned it.
I was hopeing they would talk about PS3 as well, and say it could do that.

Now im kinda expecting that it maybe wont be able to.



Around the Network
haxxiy on 18 March 2020

I had expected the final clock would try to be even more than 2000 MHz, after the 1825 MHz of the XSX, but I expected something like 2050 MHz locked, not a variable rate.

I wonder about the thermal leeway of the APU and how exactly it's going to juggle the two frequencies. 2.23 GHz on practice is probably as much of a theoretical pipe dream as tablet APUs running at their full speeds.



 

 

 

 

 

derpysquirtle64 on 18 March 2020
DonFerrari said:
within 20% difference between the "Tflop" count, with a lot less CUs at a higher frequency. So price may be a lot smaller and the lost performance may not be that visible.

SSD will be much more expensive though with these speeds. I think both machines cost around the same in terms of build costs with Xbox having more expensive APU and PS5 having more expensive SSD.

JRPGfan said:
DonFerrari said:
within 20% *15% difference between the "Tflop" count, with a lot less CUs at a higher frequency. So price may be a lot smaller and the lost performance may not be that visible.

10,3 vs 12,15

However the GPU parts of the Playstation 5, run at higher speeds.
(which effects other things than just the Tflops numbers)

So differnce is less than 15% imo.

Ram 520 GB/s vs 448 GB/s = ~14%

However I dont think it ll matter, both will run 4k games.

560 GB/s, not 520



 

DonFerrari on 18 March 2020
ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said:

You are wrong. They said the system can always run in boost mode. It will drop frequency if the game in question doesn't require that power.

Yep. It's 'base' is technically it's highest boost that's what they designed the entire system around. 

It's different from laptop manufacturers who will design for base spec and boost up if needed to but intel chips will not boost for 3 hours straight. Whereas AMD chips do do that, and Sony took the opportunity to take advantage of this and plan for a boost 24/7 scenario. Very smart approach and best for everyone. 

For me Sony solution (including SSD 3rd party slot, dedicated 3D audio chip, decompression chip, etc) seemed like a very smart trade off on small quantity of power for big gains in price and dimension.



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."

derpysquirtle64 on 18 March 2020
JRPGfan said:
Good explaination of why they choose fewer CU running faster, instead of more running slower speeds.
I didnt know there was additional gains, other than the chip size ones.

With more CUs you can run more tasks in parallel which is important for GPUs, but of course Cerny decided not to mention it. Guys who work in game dev are laughing at all this "higher clock" is better stuff because actually it is better to have more CUs than run them at higher frequency. 



 

Random_Matt on 18 March 2020

MS will likely charge obscene money for propriety. One reason I never bought at Vita.