haxxiy said:
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.
|
Cerny was clear that the system was made to run at that maximum for as long as the game needs it. The frequency will be variable by the game need (load) instead of thermal limits. That way they could know the maximum heat and power drain and keep at it. He even said they capped the frequency of both chips because it could go higher but not sustainable.
derpysquirtle64 said:
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:
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
|
The more expensive part on the SSD is on the controller and channels, but doesn't seem as large as the extra number of CUs of X1, Extra memory channels, heatsink solution on the SSD integration. Also the speed while higher than PCI 3.0 is lower than the new 4.0 standard so I don't think the SSD used will keep high price, while the many more CUs and Memory controllers for XSX will take longer to cut down.
derpysquirtle64 said:
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.
|
He talked about it, that from his experience is harder to fill out more CUs and gave one disadvantage of having less CUs and higher frequency. And made his decision around that, if in the end that was the best choice or not we will see.
sales2099 said:
We have a verdict yet? |
Yes. Overall both seem on same ballpark but with Xbox Series X up to 15% stronger, but no conclusion can be given before we see they running games =]
Kyuu said:
So from what I'm gathering, it's basically 15%-30%~ percent weaker in GPU/CPU than XSX (with it being variable and all that). I wonder how much influence will the faster SSD have on game design and immersion but I don't see it outweighing the disadvantages. I'm pretty sure it'll sound like a jet engine so that's the other flaw lol.
And yes, felt like a terrible way to introduce the system to the masses. Hyping people up and streaming this was a bad idea.
|
Nope 15% or less. It is variable if the games is less demanding not for other reasons. They were very vocal on the sound and thermal problems they had previous gen so I don't think you should worry about it.
They posted a twitter saying it would be deep dive on PS5 so it was pretty clear it would be technical stuff.
JRPGfan said:
Nu-13 said:
Sounds like both will cost $499.
|
In that case, Xbox won the design choices imo.
If their priced the same, and the xbox series x is like 15% faster, that means they spent their budget better.
I still think Playstation 5 will be cheaper.
Why?
36 CU vs 52 CU = ~45% differnce.
256bit bus vs 320bit bus = ~25% differnce.
Thats alot of "space saved" on the chip side of things (for the playstation 5).
A smaller chip means cheaper to produce (the chip part atleast).
|
Yep I don't see a reason for PS5 to not be 50 cheaper to produce. Just look at Ahmad projection.
Vodacixi said:
sales2099 said:
You think their lack of showmanship was counterproductive?
And only PS4 BC???? Good to know MS has them beat on this point. So many 360 gems I’ve yet to play in my back catalog. I’m sure the same goes for those who had a PS3
|
Not exactly. I the presentation was good for what it was: a talk for professional developers made by professional developers. Very technical. That's not a bad thing. The bad thing is that yesterday they said to everyone on social media: "HEY GUYS, COME TOMORROW TO SEE THE INFORMATION OF PS5!". Most people (myself included) are not interested in a presentation so technical and professional, so it was a mistake on Sony's part to announce this as an event for everyone. Because it wasn't. The average Jill or Joe will be killed by boredo.
About backwards compatibility... I was as surprised as you. Power alone makes it perfectly possible. They just had to work out a PS3 emulator, because they already have everything else. But whathever... it is what it is...
|
It was very clear from the start it would be a technical presentation, GDC material, Deep Dive, etc.
From what I saw all MS have put forward recently were also quite technical and interesting as well.
Captain_Yuri said:
The two things I find interesting are Memory Bandwidth differences for the Vram between XsX and Ps5 and the ps5's boost behaviour.
XSX has 10GB of Vram at 560GB/s and 6GB at 336GB/s vs Ps5's all 16GB at 448GB/s. It will be interesting to see how games perform as more and more Vram gets used cause in theory, if a game needs more than 10GB of Vram, the ps5 might be a bit of an advantage depending on the situation.
The boost aspect is also kind of interesting:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-playstation-5-specs-and-tech-that-deliver-sonys-next-gen-vision
It almost sounds like if a game is on full tilt using all 8 cores at 3.5ghz and gpu at 2.23ghz, the ps5 might down clock slightly to meet it's power targets.
"What happens when the processor does hit its power limit and components down-clock? In his presentation, Mark Cerny freely admits that CPU and GPU won't always be running at 3.5GHz and 2.23GHz respectively."
"When that worst case game arrives, it will run at a lower clock speed. But not too much lower, to reduce power by 10 per cent it only takes a couple of percent reduction in frequency, so I'd expect any downclocking to be pretty minor," he explains. "All things considered, the change to a variable frequency approach will show significant gains for PlayStation gamers."
"So how does boost work in this case? Put simply, the PlayStation 5 is given a set power budget tied to the thermal limits of the cooling assembly. "It's a completely different paradigm," says Cerny. "Rather than running at constant frequency and letting the power vary based on the workload, we run at essentially constant power and let the frequency vary based on the workload.""
"Rather than look at the actual temperature of the silicon die, we look at the activities that the GPU and CPU are performing and set the frequencies on that basis - which makes everything deterministic and repeatable," Cerny explains in his presentation. "While we're at it, we also use AMD's SmartShift technology and send any unused power from the CPU to the GPU so it can squeeze out a few more pixels." |
The CPU and GPU were capped to those frequencies because that was the maximum sustainable and it varies depending on the games need not anything else so don't worry.
