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
the-pi-guy said:
Pemalite said:

Sure. Keep in mind that the 2060 Super can match the RTX 2070 though and in some cases even beat it by a tiny margin.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2517?vs=2513

And Sony has provided a "best case scenario" with it's clocks, there is the potential that a developer will prioritize CPU tasks at the expense of the GPU, you can't peg both chunks of the silicon and maintain the full 3.5Ghz+2.23Ghz.

There is the potential we could see the GPU limited to something like 2ghz or about 9.2 Teraflops for what it's worth.

It actually sounds more complicated than that. 

1.) GPU and CPU both had to be capped because they would otherwise run faster.  

2.) Cerny said that both would usually run at the max speeds.  

It was mentioned later that they tested higher speeds but to ensure optimal  stability so the PS5 could run at those speeds long term they pegged it at those speeds that's why they said it was the maximum and also the base who knows those pegged speeds might even be under the optimal to give some head room. Cerny also mentioned throttling if it occured would be minor with a 10% power decrease only need a  ~ 2 % frequency adjustment.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 20 March 2020

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
the-pi-guy said:

2.) Cerny said that both would usually run at the max speeds.  

Very much doubt that Cerny stated both will run at max speeds at the same time, all the time. ;)
Otherwise the technology implemented designed to share power/thermal balancing is a waste of time, money, resources and oxygen to explain.

No, it won't run at max speeds all the time, but they can. 

mjk45 said:
the-pi-guy said:

It actually sounds more complicated than that. 

1.) GPU and CPU both had to be capped because they would otherwise run faster.  

2.) Cerny said that both would usually run at the max speeds.  

It was mentioned later that much higher speeds with stability was feasible but as we all know the higher you go the more unstable things become and it's not always a matter of now it's stable now it isn't, so  to ensure optimal  stability over the long term they pegged it at those speeds and who knows those pegged speeds might even be under the optimal to give some head room. Cerny mentioned throttling if it occured would be minor around !0% or less for the duration of the spike.

Pointing out, it's not the frequency that changes by 10%.  He was talking about a 10% power decrease can be facilitated by a ~2% drop in frequency.

Although power is constant, frequency is determined by the workload.



Hm, honestly at this point I'm just ready to go out and buy one already.



the-pi-guy said:
Pemalite said:

Very much doubt that Cerny stated both will run at max speeds at the same time, all the time. ;)
Otherwise the technology implemented designed to share power/thermal balancing is a waste of time, money, resources and oxygen to explain.

No, it won't run at max speeds all the time, but they can. 

mjk45 said:

It was mentioned later that much higher speeds with stability was feasible but as we all know the higher you go the more unstable things become and it's not always a matter of now it's stable now it isn't, so  to ensure optimal  stability over the long term they pegged it at those speeds and who knows those pegged speeds might even be under the optimal to give some head room. Cerny mentioned throttling if it occured would be minor around !0% or less for the duration of the spike.

Pointing out, it's not the frequency that changes by 10%.  He was talking about a 10% power decrease can be facilitated by a ~2% drop in frequency.

Although power is constant, frequency is determined by the workload.

Thanks for the info I realised after writing that it seemed wrong have edited it.



Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

If you rewatch the presentation you'll see Mark Cerny saying something about it hitting 20Gb/s depending on the situation.

That's like saying the Playstation 5 can hit 10 teraflops "depending on the situation".
Ultimately it's irrelevant.

DonFerrari said:

And yes I know not all compression is the same. Thus why the only firm data is the 5.5Gb/s both 8-9 and 20 are depending on scenarios, 8-9 the most likely during most of time and 20 a theoretical limit.

Not all data compresses at the same rate or to the same extent. 5.5GB/s is the only 100% reliable metric.
There will be datasets that are pre-compressed which will not be compressible further.

DonFerrari said:

About the RAID and other PC superiorities, which even Digital Foundry is putting the solution in PS5 was better than what was in the PC at the time, does most current gen AAA games on PC load in 1s with keeping the status of like 4 games saved at once for quick resume?

The only limit to a PC's storage subsystem is essentially complexity, power, cost.

The PC doesn't even need an SSD to beat the Playstation 5's storage speed... And there is the potential to have 100 games in quick resume that loads faster than the Playstation 5 on PC.

It's called a Ram Drive... And you can have speeds in excess of 100GB/s. Just food for thought.

Very much doubt the Playstation 5 will be able to load it's entire DRAM in just 1 second either... But the PC can certainly do it in less time.

Hiku said:

I think the other comment was saying that today, an equivalent to the SSD in PS5 doesn't exist. And the link you gave was from end of Dec 2019, so I got the impression that you were also talking about nowadays.
But in the case that they don't exist today, that should be true at the time Cerny made his Wired statement as well, so I'll focus on today.

And an equivalent SSD to what is in the Playstation 5 will never exist, it's a custom solution.

Doesn't mean the Playstation 5 is the superior approach though, it's definitely the faster approach for that price point however.

Hiku said:

I'm not knowledgeable on the subject at all. But I was listening to Digital Foundry's analysis, and they did say that "SSD's capable of these sustained transfer rates don't really exist in the consumer space today."
And then one of them said that today, "the drives are catching up to the performance level of Sony's internal solution."

https://youtu.be/4higSVRZlkA?t=1343

He mirrors what Cerny said about those drives needing to be even faster than Sony's 5.5 GB, because of the 6 levels of priority on the PS5's SSD.
Because PS5's I/O would need to step in and enforce those extra levels of priority difference on drives that don't support it.

They do exist, they just aren't commodity, consumer-level, every-day drives.

The priority levels are there to prioritise which data transfers take priority, it doesn't actually give the drive more bandwidth.

Hiku said:


I don't know how much faster they need to be though. Maybe RAID would function in a similar manner on PC, but I don't know how that accounts for the difference in technology.
By the way, the Kioxia SSD you linked to has 4.2 GB write speed. If the SSD is supposed to function as RAM then is write speed important as well?

If you can have the Raw bandwidth of a PC SSD beat even the compressed bandwidth of the PS5 SSD, then the PC will have the advantage... And it's entirely plausible with technology available on the market today.

Yes. Write speed is important, the PS5's write speeds will likely be lower than it's read speeds, it's actually a limitation of the NAND itself and how it writes data in blocks.

Hiku said:

I suppose Cerny does need to prove how that technology compares to industry standard SSD speed. Though Digital Foundry weren't skeptical, so I guess it seems plausible to them. I wouldn't know.
And yeah, the physical size of the drive I didn't mention because of anything you said, but just to emphasize that it may be tricky to find a compatible drive in more ways than one.

I am not skeptical on the PS5's SSD speed, I applaud it.
The PC can just take it further as it's not limited by cost or form factor.

And to be fair... Most SSD's will not be compatible with the PS5, they need to be the right form factor, they need the right interface, they need the right performance profile... And they can't have a heatsink.

Intrinsic said:

  1. If the XBX is comparable to the 2080... there is no way that the PS5 is comparable to the 2060... there's like a 15% performance difference between the 2080 super and the 2070 super. So that main one with the difference between the XSX and the PS5. You are right though, we do not know all the details and it would be silly making these kinda assessments now.

The 2060 is not the same as the 2060 Super.

Intrinsic said:
  1. Yes, I know you can obviously do compression stuff on a PC too. Using the GPU/CPU like the current-gen consoles are doing right now. But the next-gen consoles and particularly the PS5 has specific silicon exclusively for that task. And not just talking about compression/decompression here, I am saying there are other components built into the PS5s APU specifically to make this whole instant access/data throughput/management unique to the PS5.

GPU's have compression blocks as well... Which are used for things like Delta Colour Compression and Texture Compression.
Just this time it is on the I/O side of the equation...

Drives like the Seagate Nytro drives and older Sandforce based drives also did "compression" on the SSD controller, to various extents and effectiveness, they did have a ton of caveats and implications though, maybe Sony and Microsoft have solved the problems that plagued old SSD's? Interested to see how it pans out.

the-pi-guy said:

2.) Cerny said that both would usually run at the max speeds.  

Very much doubt that Cerny stated both will run at max speeds at the same time, all the time. ;)
Otherwise the technology implemented designed to share power/thermal balancing is a waste of time, money, resources and oxygen to explain.

Thanks for the clarification, because on what I found for SSD load times and similar on PC it was still something like reducing from 1 minute to 20s instead of 1s.



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

Around the Network
CrazyGPU said:

I have to say you were right on spot (Intrinsic) when you were calculating an equivalent of 15 Teraflops or even more for PS5 years ago considering architecture changes. If 8 TF of NAVI is equivalent to 13 for VEGA 64, then let say 10 teraflops of PS5 would be 16,25 on the old architecture.  So a little better than you thought it would be. 

Still The XBOX is faster. I think It will be equivalent to a RTX 2080 while the PS5 is more like something in between a RTX 2070-RTX 2070 super. 

Considering what a company like Crytek did when It made Crysis back in 2007, I think great things can come from both consoles. 

IF they don´t reach 60 fps 4k in ultra quality, they would reach it in very high quality mode or high. Its much better than what we had when PS4 was launched, that was 1080p medium quality mode. 

Discussing if PC can have an SSD as fast as PS5 or not, doesn´t make much sense at all. 

First of all its a matter of time that PCs will have faster hardware if it doesn´t now,  and I guess that in 7 years consoles SSDs would be really slow in comparison. PC will be always ahead. But  that doesn´t mean that that hardware is used. 

Mainstream on PC is different. Many people, me included, have SSDs based on SATA3. And there are a lot that still have mecanical disks. 

So It will take a great deal of time until games are made for pc considering everyone of us have 7 GB/s SSDs. 

PS5 exclusives programmers will take advantage of that starting at the end of this year.  

Same with graphic cards. Which designed really takes advantage of an RTX 2080 ti? yes you have some better textures and more fps, but is the geometry different? is the lighthing really diferent, not much? Also the games are what matters. I´m sick of minecraft. 

When Microsoft showed the Xbox one X for the 1st time, they showed Forza and Minecraft 4k. 

Now they show Senua 2, that is not even a true AAA game, we´ll see if it gets there, and Minecraft Ray tracing. 

While Sony is doing the best games that look awesome even on PS4 pro. I can´t imagine what Naughty Dog or Santa Monica would be doing  with the power of a PS5. 

Lol yeah, I was right back then, was also right about them using SSDs... though I wasn't expecting 5.5GB/s. And yes I am fully aware that the XSX is just flat out faster. I am super stoked thought about how close and powerful they both are. I am kinda bummed out that the greatest strength of the PS5 is something that we are likely not to see 3rd party devs fully take advantage of, but well... Thank God for Sony worldwide studios.

NobleTeam360 said:
Hm, honestly at this point I'm just ready to go out and buy one already.

You and me both sir...



taus90 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

No 5700XT would get you 45 FPS 4K in Witcher 3 on high, but not ultra settings. 2070 S would get you 55 FPS 4K in Witcher 3 on high, but not ultra settings. 2070 Super is a class above a 5700XT.

Source: logicalincrements.com

thats your performance benchmark witcher3? a 5 year old game! why dont you check out the performance in recently released titles with Dx12 or vulcan support. just a youtube search will give you a clear picture where 5700XT stands in comparison to 2070 super. 5700xt only lags behind in dx11 games but even that performance gap has been significantly closed up by AMD driver updates. 

if you dont want to search here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmlRzGhdWdM

if you dont wanna watch so ill sum it up for you Battlefield v, Shadow of Tomb raider, Exodus, Star wars, world war z all have better or equally good performance on similar settings to 2070 super. AMD updates have significantly improved their cards performances, and if you undervolt and overclock 5700xt (PS5) it convincingly beats 2070 super

and this is without even taking RDNA2 improvements into consideration.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. Being a 5 year old game doesn't mean much. Witcher 3 is one of the best looking games of this gen, and it's open world, which is harder on FPS than other games. That's why I was using it. 

But the video you showed, shows that the XT has indeed caught up with the 2070 Super. This is really good news. I wanted to get an AMD GPU for two years now, but the Vega just sucked, and the 580 was low end by the time I finally got around to building my rig. If AMD's next gen cards wind up being on par with Nvidia's higher end next gen cards, without too much of a power draw problem, I'll be sold. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Intrinsic said:
CrazyGPU said:

I have to say you were right on spot (Intrinsic) when you were calculating an equivalent of 15 Teraflops or even more for PS5 years ago considering architecture changes. If 8 TF of NAVI is equivalent to 13 for VEGA 64, then let say 10 teraflops of PS5 would be 16,25 on the old architecture.  So a little better than you thought it would be. 

Still The XBOX is faster. I think It will be equivalent to a RTX 2080 while the PS5 is more like something in between a RTX 2070-RTX 2070 super. 

Considering what a company like Crytek did when It made Crysis back in 2007, I think great things can come from both consoles. 

IF they don´t reach 60 fps 4k in ultra quality, they would reach it in very high quality mode or high. Its much better than what we had when PS4 was launched, that was 1080p medium quality mode. 

Discussing if PC can have an SSD as fast as PS5 or not, doesn´t make much sense at all. 

First of all its a matter of time that PCs will have faster hardware if it doesn´t now,  and I guess that in 7 years consoles SSDs would be really slow in comparison. PC will be always ahead. But  that doesn´t mean that that hardware is used. 

Mainstream on PC is different. Many people, me included, have SSDs based on SATA3. And there are a lot that still have mecanical disks. 

So It will take a great deal of time until games are made for pc considering everyone of us have 7 GB/s SSDs. 

PS5 exclusives programmers will take advantage of that starting at the end of this year.  

Same with graphic cards. Which designed really takes advantage of an RTX 2080 ti? yes you have some better textures and more fps, but is the geometry different? is the lighthing really diferent, not much? Also the games are what matters. I´m sick of minecraft. 

When Microsoft showed the Xbox one X for the 1st time, they showed Forza and Minecraft 4k. 

Now they show Senua 2, that is not even a true AAA game, we´ll see if it gets there, and Minecraft Ray tracing. 

While Sony is doing the best games that look awesome even on PS4 pro. I can´t imagine what Naughty Dog or Santa Monica would be doing  with the power of a PS5. 

Lol yeah, I was right back then, was also right about them using SSDs... though I wasn't expecting 5.5GB/s. And yes I am fully aware that the XSX is just flat out faster. I am super stoked thought about how close and powerful they both are. I am kinda bummed out that the greatest strength of the PS5 is something that we are likely not to see 3rd party devs fully take advantage of, but well... Thank God for Sony worldwide studios.

NobleTeam360 said:
Hm, honestly at this point I'm just ready to go out and buy one already.

You and me both sir...

Ok, now I need to make a thread about how fast is going to be the hardware of PS5 pro and Xbox series X2. Lol. 

Are you happy with the next gen consoles specs? 



mjk45 said:
PotentHerbs said:

The XSX is their premium model which is being followed by their base model in Lockhart. This situation is reversed for the PS5. If the PS5 Pro aims to double its TF count, similar to the PS4 Pro, MS at the bare minimum would need to surpass that, probably double the XSX, if they wanted another premium option. That would make the gap between Lockhart and the XSX Super astronomical. Is scalability really feasible with a low end of 4/6TF to a high end of 24TF? Its much easier with 4/6TF & 12 TF. MS can't just drop Lockhart despite all the bottlenecks it would present to the highest end model. That doesn't even consider what MS might cut back in order to hit a favorable, mass market price.

Ultimately, MS priorities and goals revolve around subscription models, & they would prioritize that over being the power leader 4 - 5 years down the line. Lockhart at $299, maybe even $199, seems like a more favorable strategy for them, instead of releasing another high end Xbox model. This option goes down the drain if Xbox Series X is their base of course, but according to MS insiders, Lockhart is still in the works.

The truth is a potential PS5 Pro or the Xbox equivalent isn't made for the mass market that the job of the Series X and the lockhart is there to cater for those that want to play next gen games but are fine with a budget model, just like this gen those Pro type consoles are aimed at the enthusiast with best expectations of around 20% as to the scaling it pretty straight forward the series X will be the base and the other two get scaled up and down from there.the High Ends  extra horsepower will be limited by the need for parity just like today's SKU's but with the likely addition of PC style ultra settings  on top of the usual benefits .

I see the Series X as the premium console. Its already being marketed as a console that "eats monsters for breakfast." It will probably have an entry point of at least $500. We're getting those ultra high settings right off the bat instead of a mid gen upgrade. Also consider that there could be confusion among consumers if MS has three different SKU's. IIRC, the Xbox One was phased out for the Xbox One S. Perhaps for this very reason?  

I also doubt that Project Lockhart isn't the base console. Microsoft's cross generation strategy already targets the Xbox One S until at least 2021. Project Lockhart is poised to be MS cheapest entry into next gen, making it likely the majority of their next gen userbase are Lockhart owners, and any potential bottlenecks of Lockhart need to be prioritized in terms of development. Lockhart is rumored to have a weaker GPU, so maybe they have a weaker CPU, since these units will include an SSD & MS will need to cut cost somewhere. 



PotentHerbs said:
mjk45 said:

The truth is a potential PS5 Pro or the Xbox equivalent isn't made for the mass market that the job of the Series X and the lockhart is there to cater for those that want to play next gen games but are fine with a budget model, just like this gen those Pro type consoles are aimed at the enthusiast with best expectations of around 20% as to the scaling it pretty straight forward the series X will be the base and the other two get scaled up and down from there.the High Ends  extra horsepower will be limited by the need for parity just like today's SKU's but with the likely addition of PC style ultra settings  on top of the usual benefits .

I see the Series X as the premium console. Its already being marketed as a console that "eats monsters for breakfast." It will probably have an entry point of at least $500. We're getting those ultra high settings right off the bat instead of a mid gen upgrade. Also consider that there could be confusion among consumers if MS has three different SKU's. IIRC, the Xbox One was phased out for the Xbox One S. Perhaps for this very reason?  

I also doubt that Project Lockhart isn't the base console. Microsoft's cross generation strategy already targets the Xbox One S until at least 2021. Project Lockhart is poised to be MS cheapest entry into next gen, making it likely the majority of their next gen userbase are Lockhart owners, and any potential bottlenecks of Lockhart need to be prioritized in terms of development. Lockhart is rumored to have a weaker GPU, so maybe they have a weaker CPU, since these units will include an SSD & MS will need to cut cost somewhere. 

it's obvious that  the Xbox series x will be the model developers target, rather than the lockhart the series x isn't being marketed as a pro version rather its their main platform the difference from this gen is the secondary SKU is a weaker one rather than an upgrade and also it won't be years later the reason the Xbox One S will be supported isn't because of Lockhart but the timeline of making next gen games combined with the time it takes for next gen to have enough sales to take the lead role in software sales.

The reason for the xbox one replacement is just like Sony with their slim models a result of manufacturing gains overtime and are made to replace the older models and give them better profitability, moving on to the way they support the Lockhart developers like Naughty Dog and many others create their assets at higher res than needed example PS3 uncharted games were created with 4K assets and scaled back to PS3 this is apparently has beneficial outcomes and gives your assets some future proofing there is no way they will hamstring themselves with Lockhart you will see the same games scaled down with less res and detail

The reason they couldn't develop the Xbox one x to it's full potential is they would have had a lot of xbox one gamers feeling betrayed not this time it's the beginning of the gen and the Lockhart will marketed as a budget model and there will have been plenty of design choices to make the porting has seamless as they can, also some games may have dual development.

We also have to remember that any future upgrades will be years away so it's not like we will have 3 SKU's for years and remember what is great today isn't so great down the track and consoles tend to have price drops.