Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

[iroboto]

Is there any particular reason why Microsoft/Azure would use such lack-luster hardware than traditional state of the art server wares? I mean, simply provisioning various VMs to Xbox systems spec's would seem better served in cloud environment and more cost effective (long-term) than replacing/reprovisioning your network when dealing with obviously outdated gaming-systems wares when expansion and capacity will be necessary on sustaining network usage and growth.

I can semi-understand if there was thousands of unsold Xbox One hardware laying around that got repurposed for such needs, but using physical Lockhart gaming hardware in a rapidly expanding cloud environment sounds wonky. IMHO, a more traditional server/cloud environment with provisioned VMs to whatever Xbox system spec, would seem (be) more appropriate for future needs.

MS azure will do pay per use pricing on any equipment that they can profit from. So it doesn’t really matter what the hardware is. An unlocked Lockhart would be fairly powerful compared to most CPU rentals you would need to pay for.

I’ve done the math and even on the cheapest bare bones systems, if you aren’t doing large workloads, it’s cheaper to run stuff on azure than buying your own cheap gear to do it.

 

[Barrabas]

I think PS5 is possibly closer to Anaconda in performance than MS were expecting (perhaps even ahead in some areas?). Playstation is so important to Sony that I think they're prepared to push the boat out in a way they didn't with PS4 and PS4Pro, following on from the difficult PS3.

I think Sony already pushed the boat with PS4 almost 50 % power above Xbone in addition to add 4 GB ram and releasing Pro one year ahead of XboneX

 

[Barrabas]

Holy old Jesus, we really need some rumors NOW!....

 

[temesgen]

Holy old Jesus, we really need some rumors NOW!....

Sony bought Lockheart design from MS right after E3 because their internal RTRT solution wouldn't work. There's literally twice as much power in Scarlett as PS5 now.

 

[Barrabas]

Sony bought Lockheart design from MS right after E3 because their internal RTRT solution wouldn't work. There's literally twice as much power in Scarlett as PS5 now.

And Sony literally added the Lockheart MB in the PS5 to handle the RT. In addition they decided to unlock the butterfly section at release wich they had planned to unlock for the pro version in 2023.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

think PS5 is possibly closer to Anaconda in performance than MS were expecting (perhaps even ahead in some areas?).

AFAIK the non-pastebin reputable sources so far are saying the PS5 is the most powerful on paper.
Game Informer's Andrew Reiner and Colin Moriarty stated that devs have been comparing the two and the PS5 is "definitely more powerful".

 

[AzBat]

Is there any particular reason why Microsoft/Azure would use such lack-luster hardware than traditional state of the art server wares? I mean, simply provisioning various VMs to Xbox systems spec's would seem better served in cloud environment and more cost effective (long-term) than replacing/reprovisioning your network when dealing with obviously outdated gaming-systems wares when expansion and capacity will be necessary on sustaining network usage and growth.

I can semi-understand if there was thousands of unsold Xbox One hardware laying around that got repurposed for such needs, but using physical Lockhart gaming hardware in a rapidly expanding cloud environment sounds wonky. IMHO, a more traditional server/cloud environment with provisioned VMs to whatever Xbox system spec, would seem (be) more appropriate for future needs.

Currently they're already using blades of XB1S motherboards for xCloud. The 2-tier SKU was not just to have the cheapest & most expensive SKUs against the PS5. The Lockhart SKU would eventually be used to switch out the XB1S blades. There are going to be Anaconda processors that won't meet performance requirements. So they can bin lower performing parts & use those for blades that only need to serve 1080p gaming. Microsoft can secure a better deal with suppliers knowing they won't just need the best of the best parts. Anyway, all this has been hinted in previous discussions Phil has talked about & discussed here. But if you think they can already create a VM to emulate the Anaconda on high performing Azure servers when they won't even do that for XB1S then I have some beachfront property here in Arkansas to sell you. As @anexanhume mentions above, it will be interesting to see how this affects Anaconda specs & their xCloud plans. Wished we could get more details but with this new change I have a feeling we will hear very little until next year. They're going to have their head down working hard on trying to get ready for launch & making sure they get their messaging right.

Tommy McClain

 

[Proelite]

Phil said the Scarlett silicon will be dual purposed for enterprise workloads. I figured that includes high end GPU compute.

 

[iroboto]

Phil said the Scarlett silicon will be dual purposed for enterprise workloads. I figured that includes high end GPU compute.

it doesn't have to be. There are a lot of customers in the mid-range and lower markets looking for support without having to pay for server time with Teslas etc.

 

[HBRU]

I'm not sure it's really absurd. The PS4 and XBoxOne are both likely to see 7nm iterations, and there are a variety of options open:

1. A straight forward shrink of their current SoC's. This has the benefit of 100% compatibility, but the downside of paying for porting old architectures to a newer node.
2. Use Zen and Navi. Only in the capacity of emulating the PS4/XBoxOne, and releasing them just as super slim versions of said consoles.
3. Use Zen and Navi to create cheap set top boxes - I'll call them PSTV and XBoxTV for ease of reference - which are like a waaaaay stripped down PS5/XBoxNext. Capable of locally playing PS4/XBoxOne games. Able to be targeted by devs if they feel the platform's worthwhile, a risk which is ameliorated by native compatibility with the home consoles.

I really like the idea of the third option for both Sony and Microsoft. Especially as portables.

if Sony chooses HMB2 maybe (3) is a possibility for them to go portable otherwise much probably (as said before) your hypothesis (2) depending on CU count on ps5 chips.... I dont see a revision of ps4 at 7 nm, really little chances its going happen (1).... MS excluded (3) & (2)... ????? Maybe the One-X at 7nm is still a good Idea... They can even push up frequencies as they did for One-s vs orig One

 

[HBRU]

the dead of Lockhart may means Anaconda specs has been lowered from what planned... This because (a) are anyway enough having seen both Stadias and Ps5s specs.... (b) less chips are going be discharged so costs will be less... Maybe 7nm+ is less energy efficient from what they expect and/or creates less detective chips ....

 

[BRiT]

Or it may mean everything was drastically raised from what was planned years ago.

 

[cheapchips]

If Sony are currently more powerful I think MS will add an extra Cpu. Worked for Saturn. ;-)

 

[Barrabas]

the dead of Lockhart may means Anaconda specs has been lowered from what planned... This because (a) are anyway enough having seen both Stadias and Ps5s specs.... (b) less chips are going be discharged so costs will be less... Maybe 7nm+ is less energy efficient from what they expect and/or creates less detective chips ....

They need the detective chips in every console to disclose inefficient programming that don't exploit the hardware potential

 

[Barrabas]

Phil said the Scarlett silicon will be dual purposed for enterprise workloads. I figured that includes high end GPU compute.

Aren't Navi architecture less suitable for compute with more focus at gaming needs?

 

[Shortbread]

the dead of Lockhart may means Anaconda specs has been lowered from what planned...

I think whatever SoC/APU Microsoft had planned for Anaconda isn't going to change because Lockhart is presumably no more. If anything, it gives Microsoft's Xbox engineering team(s) more time on improving the system's overall performance.

Personally, what I see without the crazy rumors and speculation, is that both systems (PS5/XB2) will break the 10TF barrier and have no more than a 5%-10% difference between them TF wise (possibly favoring Microsoft). Where things will get interesting IMHO, will be the memory/bandwidth configurations and the level of customizations behind the storage solutions (possibly favoring Sony). In the end, the overall system configuration will outweigh any single aspect of the system. So in that regard we'll have to wait and see...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I think between journalists they talk. Certainly enough to have similiar/same information as each other. I suspect some validate their findings with their peers etc.

With a few exceptions, don't expect to any reliable to originate from journalists, they 'report' (read: repeat) what others are saying. Most journalists a) lack a technical understanding and b) do not have reliable insider sources. The handful that do, like Jason Schreier, aren't sharing that with other journalists. They don't need to validate their sources, their sources are the horses mouth.

 

[function]

AFAIK the non-pastebin reputable sources so far are saying the PS5 is the most powerful on paper.
Game Informer's Andrew Reiner and Colin Moriarty stated that devs have been comparing the two and the PS5 is "definitely more powerful".

Well I think that could be a major factor in Lockheart's demise. On top of streaming becoming a major player, confusion with the 1X, resources being split between SKUs etc.

I think Sony already pushed the boat with PS4 almost 50 % power above Xbone in addition to add 4 GB ram and releasing Pro one year ahead of XboneX

PS4 was and is a great design, a far better set of decisions and compromises than the launch X1. But it was designed around a $399 pricepoint and not losing money - a response to PS3 haemorrhaging billion$ in its early years.

I think things have changed again for Sony due to the PS4. Playstation is now more important to Sony than ever and they want to maintain market leadership, and that means ensuring they don't fall behind in terms of capability.

Whether it's through a higher retail price, loss leading or a combination of both the BOM of PS5 is likely to be somewhat higher than PS4 IMO. I think Sony made a good case for this with their recent financials where they showed just how much money early PS4 sales brought in over their lifetime. They are also the machines that secure a large market as the generation matures. A strong, steady army of early adopters pay for themselves and justify initial loss leading.

It's a risk certainly, but the rewards can be huge.

 

[ultragpu]

Well I think that could be a major factor in Lockheart's demise. On top of streaming becoming a major player, confusion with the 1X, resources being split between SKUs etc.



PS4 was and is a great design, a far better set of decisions and compromises than the launch X1. But it was designed around a $399 pricepoint and not losing money - a response to PS3 haemorrhaging billion$ in its early years.

I think things have changed again for Sony due to the PS4. Playstation is now more important to Sony than ever and they want to maintain market leadership, and that means ensuring they don't fall behind in terms of capability.

Whether it's through a higher retail price, loss leading or a combination of both the BOM of PS5 is likely to be somewhat higher than PS4 IMO. I think Sony made a good case for this with their recent financials where they showed just how much money early PS4 sales brought in over their lifetime. They are also the machines that secure a large market as the generation matures. A strong, steady army of early adopters pay for themselves and justify initial loss leading.

It's a risk certainly, but the rewards can be huge.

The rumor did mention Sony was originally gonna launch in 2019 with the delay of Navi pushed them back to 2020 now. Since a 2019 PS5 would surely be far less capable than a 2020 Scarlett, or could it be it was a Sony ruse all along by misdirecting the competition while actually pushing for something much more competitive? I personally think Sony always had late 2020 in a lock knowing the overall gains they would have without launching too early.

 

[AbsoluteBeginner]

One thing I'm sure of is that neither will be above 10TF. As this is Baseless Next Gen Rumor thread, I'll make my case.

PS2 - 510mm2 die size (250nm)
PS3 - 480mm2 die size (90nm)
PS4 - 348mm2 die size (28nm), 8 Jaguar cores, underclocked Pitcairn GPU with 20CU (2 disable) - PC GPU Pitcairn full 20CU, 212mm2, 175W
PS4Pro - 321mm2 die size (16nm),8 Jaguar cores, underclocked RX580 with 40CU (4 disabled) - PC GPU RX580 36CU, 232mm2, 185W

PS5 - ???mm2 die size (7nm), 8 Zen2 cores, Navi GPU with ??CU - PC GPU NAVI XT 40CU, 251mm2, 225W - (8.6TF @ base 1.6GHZ clock, 9.3TF @ 1.8GHZ game clock, 9.75 @ 1.9 full boost mode)

Conclusions :

1. As manufacturing node goes down, each new console generation has smaller die size. Likely duo to fact that console business is no longer heavy loss one + each new node is more expensive then last
2. In case of PS4 and PS4Pro, there is clear indication that mid tier AMD GPU found in PC hardware was downclocked to meet requirements of console
3. Even so, with smaller Jaguar cores (vs Zen2) we had 321mm2 and 348mm2 die chip die sizes, how much will Navi10 + RT hardware + RT cores take?
4. To top it of, PC GPU PS5 is likely to be based on one that uses more watts and takes more die space on 7nm then Pitcairn and RX580 did in last two consoles Sony made
5. Based on all this, if we assume Sony and MS won't be in HEAVY loss business (which they most certainly aren't going for), we are going to see sub 9TF GPUs in these consoles

There is a reason why GPU power was replaced by "immersion", RT and fast SSDs. Alot of GDDR6 RAM (16GB+) as well as 1TB of SSD will see through that we get consoles that cost more, but have smaller GPU power jump compared to last time duo to technology advances getting smaller and smaller.