This might be the SuborZ follow-up with double the specs + HDD.
I still believe Gonzalo = PS5.
Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john sell
- Status
This might be the SuborZ follow-up with double the specs + HDD.
I still believe Gonzalo = PS5.
Gonzalos 8 Tflops is not suficient for 4k gaming with 60 Fps and Raytraycing Effects and a 256 Bit Bus with UMA Design would be the same Bottleneckdesign like on the actual Ps4. So clearly no real new generational Lap , no innovation Tech, i cannot believe this. 16 Gbyte Ram is not enough.
snc
Veteran
Gonzalo is probably over 9tf and why do you expect performance above rx5700xt in nextgen consoles? If rx5700xt was 14tf(is 1.14x faster than 12.58tf vega64) and have the same performance you would be happy?
Although I'm not in the camp that Gonzalo or any other rumored APU are for PS5/XB-Next... I definitely feel that 16GB ram, a Zen 2 CPU and the SSD/NVMe solutions are more than a generational leap, IMHO. The bespoke storage solutions being proposed are 'true game-changers' in terms of open-world gaming, and games requiring huge texture look-ups (streaming). 4Kcb methods should be drastically improved for those developers choosing to do 4K/60fps gaming, but I see more native 4K/30fps games than the current generation.
So great times ahead in my opinion...
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
The Subor team was disbanded earlier this year.
I'm not even sure they actually released the Z Plus console to the general public.
You can't realistically have more than a generational leap as leaps are exponential. You can have a small leap, or a large leap, or no leap, but more than one generation would be 1.5x or 2x leap, meaning instead of a 10x increase in console power, something like a 50x or 100x increase in power. At the same price-point in the same time-frame, that's effectively impossible.The listed specs are very much generational in scope. Plenty of folk will argue that they are pretty anemic as far as generational advances go!
The listed specs are very much generational in scope. Plenty of folk will argue that they are pretty anemic as far as generational advances go!
I'm more specifically talking about the proposed SSD performance when compared to the standard HDD that launched with the current generation. If anything, the bespoke SSD solutions should provide more than a 40x increase in performance (accessing, streaming, etc.). So yes, for me it's more than a standard leap. But yes, some may (do) feel the total opposite - which is fine.
anexanhume
Veteran
Should shave a few watts off if cache is indeed only 8MB L3 and not needing to drive I/O to an I/O die.Another "framework for discussion" kind of post. I came across an interesting graph of Zen 2 frequency v. Power draw. While I think you should dismiss the average system power under load number, the frequency at which you hit the (too pronounced?) knee is probably pretty valid assuming the same process being used. Which in turn would imply at least a 3 GHz CPU clock speed in an upcoming console. Even a Zen 2 core, and the consoles may use an improved version, is pretty damn performant at those frequencies. If you were a PC gamer that wanted twice the frame rate of a 30Hz console game that is CPU limited, you might have to fiddle around a bit with settings since just buying a twice as performant CPU might be impossible for a good long time to come (as such a limitation is unlikely to be when running all cores full out, so throwing more cores at the problem won’t help).
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I've been thinking about the Xbox Scarlett teaser video and in particular the Samsung 14Gb/s GDDR6 memory chip part numbers.
It seems there is a mix between 1GB and 2GB chips, although what I'm struggling to understand is how such a setup can work?
Can such a configuration be used to provide a unified memory pool (assuming that's their objective) in a way that is transparent to the application/developer?
It seems there is a mix between 1GB and 2GB chips, although what I'm struggling to understand is how such a setup can work?
Can such a configuration be used to provide a unified memory pool (assuming that's their objective) in a way that is transparent to the application/developer?
At the end points there are several possibilities:
Split pools to support 2 or more different functions
Unified pool to support all functions
A forgery on behalf of MS to throw us off what it could be.
Is there any reasons at the moment to suggest one is more prominent as a possibility than the other ?
Memory controller headaches.
Maybe in a console environment the intent might be to sneak in the usual OS reservation onto the chips with higher capacity while the GameOS only sees the baseline memory capacity per chip ?
e.g.
10 chips
8 x 8Gb + 2 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 2GB OS
6 x 8Gb + 4 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 4GB OS
4 x 8 Gb + 6 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 6GB OS
the game addresses 1GB per chip, the OS reserves the extra GB on each higher capacity chip.
----------------
^ insanity++++
Maybe in a console environment the intent might be to sneak in the usual OS reservation onto the chips with higher capacity while the GameOS only sees the baseline memory capacity per chip ?
e.g.
10 chips
8 x 8Gb + 2 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 2GB OS
6 x 8Gb + 4 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 4GB OS
4 x 8 Gb + 6 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 6GB OS
the game addresses 1GB per chip, the OS reserves the extra GB on each higher capacity chip.
----------------
^ insanity++++
Last edited:
2 x 8 Gb + 8 x 16Gb = 14GB Game + 4GB OS.Memory controller headaches.
Maybe in a console environment the intent might be to sneak in the usual OS reservation onto the chips with higher capacity while the GameOS only sees the baseline memory capacity per chip ?
e.g.
10 chips
8 x 8Gb + 2 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 2GB OS
6 x 8Gb + 4 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 4GB OS
4 x 8 Gb + 6 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 6GB OS
the game addresses 1GB per chip, the OS reserves the extra GB on each higher capacity chip.
----------------
^^ insanity++++
Silent_Buddha
Legend
While unlikely, IMO, a possibility is that they saw how much information people derived from the Project Scorpio reveal and didn't want people to derive the same amount of information from the Project Scarlett reveal. Plus, final specs and configuration may still be somewhat fluid.
Regards,
SB
I agree. They went to extra length to hide the mobo in subsequent real life shots. Why do it if it's 1:1 with the render.
Some Intel and AMD? (not completely sure) motherboards support Flex Mode where dimms of different capacities but running at the speed and of the same brand will run a mixture of dual and single channel modes.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Memory controller headaches.
Maybe in a console environment the intent might be to sneak in the usual OS reservation onto the chips with higher capacity while the GameOS only sees the baseline memory capacity per chip ?
e.g.
10 chips
8 x 8Gb + 2 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 2GB OS
6 x 8Gb + 4 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 4GB OS
4 x 8 Gb + 6 x 16Gb = 10GB Game + 6GB OS
the game addresses 1GB per chip, the OS reserves the extra GB on each higher capacity chip.
----------------
^ insanity++++
How would memory controller design be configured for something like this to work?
If this was the case, why even show part numbers on the render in the first place? The fact that they went to so much trouble to include portions of the part numbers in the panning shot shows a deliberate intent to tease info. but obviously not give too much away... so I would guess a deliberate attempt to misdirect would be unlikely (because it just isn't necessary).
It might not be a deliberate tease, but artists just grabbing some numbers. We don't know what the remit was for the CGI artists. For XB1, it was "create this real product in 3D," but for Scorpio, they could have just been told to knock up something fancy looking for a visual background to all their PR spiel. At which point perhaps the artists Googled some big part numbers for authenticity?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
