Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 Teardown Video

EricHiggin said:

Actually, I'm a little curious as to whether this was all out overkill based on some earlier rumors. Either way what they've done here looks great.

With the rumors of AMD's Big Navi GPU, the model in which seems to be what the PS5 GPU is based off of, leaks show it could be capable of 2.5GHz max boost. If SNY was originally shooting for this, or as close as possible, they almost certainly would've based the cooling system off of that, considering it would be the worst case scenario in terms of thermals. Maybe even the CPU was originally planned to have been clocked somewhat higher as well, since XBSX has higher CPU clocks.

With the CPU and GPU being clocked at where they are now, it could be the case that SNY wasn't quite able to hit their assumed peak GPU clock, and therefore also were ok with a slightly lesser CPU clock as well to go along with it. Not much point in having excess CPU or GPU clocks for little reason in a balanced system. This would also help with APU chip yields and costs.

If the close to final silicon wasn't quite able to produce the upper limit of their goals, SNY should've already had the cooling system finalized by then. This would mean since the APU clocks ended up slightly lower than anticipated, the cooling system would be a little bit overkill, and likely too late to change it. Instead of having to cool around 11.5TF of GPU performance, it would only have to cool 10.3TF.

This also makes me wonder about the PS5 testing rumors of it running hot. If the reason for the liquid metal was due to having to potentially cool the GPU, and possibly CPU, at higher clocks than now advertised, since they ended up below those goals by a little bit, perhaps they decided to try and test with a cheaper thermal paste as well. They could've tried a higher end carbon based paste, which would've saved them some money, if it would've performed sufficiently.

Then we heard afterwards (can't remember if it was rumor or legit), that SNY had chosen to go with a higher end, more costly thermal solution. I wonder if they tried carbon paste, found it didn't quite keep the system cool and quiet enough, and decided to stick with the liquid metal anyway. Play it safe, and be better safe than sorry later on.

Did SNY have higher clock goals in mind initially, and would the PS5 had run near as cool and quiet in this same configuration if they had met those goals? This is just speculation. I don't have any particular reason to believe this is the case. The question based on the rumors and final outcome just came to mind.

If PS5 cooling is with to much headroom that could mean even lower fan speeds and noise or maybe they pull a trick on us and can increase frequency even more without overshooting yield, power supply capacity and cooling. X1 CPU clock increase was very late announced.



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
DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

Actually, I'm a little curious as to whether this was all out overkill based on some earlier rumors. Either way what they've done here looks great.

With the rumors of AMD's Big Navi GPU, the model in which seems to be what the PS5 GPU is based off of, leaks show it could be capable of 2.5GHz max boost. If SNY was originally shooting for this, or as close as possible, they almost certainly would've based the cooling system off of that, considering it would be the worst case scenario in terms of thermals. Maybe even the CPU was originally planned to have been clocked somewhat higher as well, since XBSX has higher CPU clocks.

With the CPU and GPU being clocked at where they are now, it could be the case that SNY wasn't quite able to hit their assumed peak GPU clock, and therefore also were ok with a slightly lesser CPU clock as well to go along with it. Not much point in having excess CPU or GPU clocks for little reason in a balanced system. This would also help with APU chip yields and costs.

If the close to final silicon wasn't quite able to produce the upper limit of their goals, SNY should've already had the cooling system finalized by then. This would mean since the APU clocks ended up slightly lower than anticipated, the cooling system would be a little bit overkill, and likely too late to change it. Instead of having to cool around 11.5TF of GPU performance, it would only have to cool 10.3TF.

This also makes me wonder about the PS5 testing rumors of it running hot. If the reason for the liquid metal was due to having to potentially cool the GPU, and possibly CPU, at higher clocks than now advertised, since they ended up below those goals by a little bit, perhaps they decided to try and test with a cheaper thermal paste as well. They could've tried a higher end carbon based paste, which would've saved them some money, if it would've performed sufficiently.

Then we heard afterwards (can't remember if it was rumor or legit), that SNY had chosen to go with a higher end, more costly thermal solution. I wonder if they tried carbon paste, found it didn't quite keep the system cool and quiet enough, and decided to stick with the liquid metal anyway. Play it safe, and be better safe than sorry later on.

Did SNY have higher clock goals in mind initially, and would the PS5 had run near as cool and quiet in this same configuration if they had met those goals? This is just speculation. I don't have any particular reason to believe this is the case. The question based on the rumors and final outcome just came to mind.

If PS5 cooling is with to much headroom that could mean even lower fan speeds and noise or maybe they pull a trick on us and can increase frequency even more without overshooting yield, power supply capacity and cooling. X1 CPU clock increase was very late announced.

If this was the case and the system all around, cooling, PSU, etc, is all overkill, running super quiet, I don't really see that as a bad thing at all. Sure it would've been more fun in the console wars if the GPU performance was closer to 11.5TF, but the system specs and price as is, are fine as far as I'm concerned.

I would be more optimistic if Cerny hadn't pointed out it's capped because they couldn't guarantee logic stability if they clocked higher. For them to come out between now and launch and say they're upping clocks would be odd. However, I don't know enough about this in terms of whether or not there is something they could do to alleviate this issue to push the clocks up.



EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

If PS5 cooling is with to much headroom that could mean even lower fan speeds and noise or maybe they pull a trick on us and can increase frequency even more without overshooting yield, power supply capacity and cooling. X1 CPU clock increase was very late announced.

If this was the case and the system all around, cooling, PSU, etc, is all overkill, running super quiet, I don't really see that as a bad thing at all. Sure it would've been more fun in the console wars if the GPU performance was closer to 11.5TF, but the system specs and price as is, are fine as far as I'm concerned.

I would be more optimistic if Cerny hadn't pointed out it's capped because they couldn't guarantee logic stability if they clocked higher. For them to come out between now and launch and say they're upping clocks would be odd. However, I don't know enough about this in terms of whether or not there is something they could do to alleviate this issue to push the clocks up.

Well from what we saw on the games the current know power isn`t an issue for me as well, but if it can be improved I`m all in.

They decided to cap, so that means it could go higher, perhaps they will allow it once they can make sure it works. But that would mean reworking the development tools.



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

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

If this was the case and the system all around, cooling, PSU, etc, is all overkill, running super quiet, I don't really see that as a bad thing at all. Sure it would've been more fun in the console wars if the GPU performance was closer to 11.5TF, but the system specs and price as is, are fine as far as I'm concerned.

I would be more optimistic if Cerny hadn't pointed out it's capped because they couldn't guarantee logic stability if they clocked higher. For them to come out between now and launch and say they're upping clocks would be odd. However, I don't know enough about this in terms of whether or not there is something they could do to alleviate this issue to push the clocks up.

Well from what we saw on the games the current know power isn`t an issue for me as well, but if it can be improved I`m all in.

They decided to cap, so that means it could go higher, perhaps they will allow it once they can make sure it works. But that would mean reworking the development tools.

It would not only be a nice boost to system performance, but it would sure fire up the PS5 hype train to off the rails levels. With rumors saying the XBSX runs a little hot, yet quiet, and MS employee's basically indirectly confirming by saying, 'that's normal as per design so don't worry', you can't help but wonder if XBSX has much headroom to do the same if MS wanted to respond to a move like that. Not to mention XBSS.

If the next gen polls are any indication, PS5 has so much of a lead, that SNY really doesn't need to bother with a move like that. Though views could change between now and launch depending on what both companies still have up their sleeves. I doubt either company would change specs even if they could after launch, so it's soon or never. Again, I'm not overly optimistic, but I think it's likely to remain unnecessary for SNY even if some minor competitive moves are made.



EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Well from what we saw on the games the current know power isn`t an issue for me as well, but if it can be improved I`m all in.

They decided to cap, so that means it could go higher, perhaps they will allow it once they can make sure it works. But that would mean reworking the development tools.

It would not only be a nice boost to system performance, but it would sure fire up the PS5 hype train to off the rails levels. With rumors saying the XBSX runs a little hot, yet quiet, and MS employee's basically indirectly confirming by saying, 'that's normal as per design so don't worry', you can't help but wonder if XBSX has much headroom to do the same if MS wanted to respond to a move like that. Not to mention XBSS.

If the next gen polls are any indication, PS5 has so much of a lead, that SNY really doesn't need to bother with a move like that. Though views could change between now and launch depending on what both companies still have up their sleeves. I doubt either company would change specs even if they could after launch, so it's soon or never. Again, I'm not overly optimistic, but I think it's likely to remain unnecessary for SNY even if some minor competitive moves are made.

I don`t think PS5 will have any issues selling all available consoles on the first year. And Sony won`t touch this if it isn`t 100% safe for them.



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
DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

It would not only be a nice boost to system performance, but it would sure fire up the PS5 hype train to off the rails levels. With rumors saying the XBSX runs a little hot, yet quiet, and MS employee's basically indirectly confirming by saying, 'that's normal as per design so don't worry', you can't help but wonder if XBSX has much headroom to do the same if MS wanted to respond to a move like that. Not to mention XBSS.

If the next gen polls are any indication, PS5 has so much of a lead, that SNY really doesn't need to bother with a move like that. Though views could change between now and launch depending on what both companies still have up their sleeves. I doubt either company would change specs even if they could after launch, so it's soon or never. Again, I'm not overly optimistic, but I think it's likely to remain unnecessary for SNY even if some minor competitive moves are made.

I don`t think PS5 will have any issues selling all available consoles on the first year. And Sony won`t touch this if it isn`t 100% safe for them.

This does sound more like an amd driver issue thou. This could just be out of sonys hand and are waiting for amd to improve things on their end or toghether. If it's fixed in a year and there's nothing they could do about it, I see no reason for them not to increase clocks in the year that its available. It cost them nothing amd gives them a leg up. 



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

wrong thread lol nvm



So how come the USB-C port is only 10 Gbps? I was expecting it to hit the USB 3.2 20Gbps or was I completely wrong in expecting that in the first place? I thought grabbing a 2TB or more m.2 drive to run externally though it with 2500MB/s speeds would of been a great option to store all the PS4 games on as a good cost to performance ratio.



WoodenPints said:
So how come the USB-C port is only 10 Gbps? I was expecting it to hit the USB 3.2 20Gbps or was I completely wrong in expecting that in the first place? I thought grabbing a 2TB or more m.2 drive to run externally though it with 2500MB/s speeds would of been a great option to store all the PS4 games on as a good cost to performance ratio.

probably a combination of licensing fees, USB interface costs, power supply needs and 3.2 ext drives/cases not being all that widely used yet made Sony decide it wasn't worth it (yet?) - btw the 2 USB-A ports in the back are also 10Gbps

the XSX only seems to have 5Gbps USB ports and per DFs internal vs external comparison the difference between loading X1 games from internal (2.5GB/s) and an ext SATA (500MB/s) is pretty miniscule as the games haven't been coded to make full use of the speed, unlike native XSX/PS5 games

Last edited by Lafiel - on 10 October 2020

Lafiel said:
WoodenPints said:
So how come the USB-C port is only 10 Gbps? I was expecting it to hit the USB 3.2 20Gbps or was I completely wrong in expecting that in the first place? I thought grabbing a 2TB or more m.2 drive to run externally though it with 2500MB/s speeds would of been a great option to store all the PS4 games on as a good cost to performance ratio.

probably a combination of licensing fees, USB interface costs, power supply needs and 3.2 ext drives/cases not being all that widely used yet made Sony decide it wasn't worth it (yet?) - btw the 2 USB-A ports in the back are also 10Gbps

the XSX only seems to have 5Gbps USB ports and per DFs internal vs external comparison the difference between loading X1 games from internal (2.5GB/s) and an ext SATA (500MB/s) is pretty miniscule as the games haven't been coded to make full use of the speed, unlike native XSX/PS5 games

Wow I overestimated both the Series X and PS5's USB speeds I thought the USB-C on the PS5 would be 20Gbps and that all 3 of the Series X ports were just 10Gbps. 5Gbps covers the standard SSD speeds of the Series X and hopefully we will get some info on the same tests done on the PS5 soon to see if the 10Gbps speeds make much different on BC games on there.

It's going to be interesting to see what the next gen consoles do for SSD prices as NVME drives at 1500-2000MB/s aren't much more than the 500MB/s SATA SSD's.