XSX is 7nm (maybe p) and RDNA1. 56 CUs at 7nm is a perfect match for about 380-390 mm² APU.
Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
N7+ ("7nm+") is completely separate process from N7 ("7nm") and they're not design compatible. N7P on the other hand IIRC is a drop-in replacement for N7.
The bigger question is which one will it be, N7(P) or N7+ - Zen 2 was designed for N7 and hasn't been implemented so far on other processes. RDNA2 then again was designed for N7+. So either way there is some extra work involved.
Which part of RDNA1 has hardware acceleration for raytracing again?
That's right. There's absolutely no reason to think either console would be RDNA1, especially since based on the patents the RT acceleration is part of TMUs and I really doubt they'd mix'n'match TMUs of one generation with CUs of another
(only chance I can really see for RDNA1 in a console is Sony if by some miracle they're not using AMD RT)
Yup, I'm aware of that. Just trying to get perspective from the smart dudes here cause out there, even knowing 7nm and 7nm+ having incompatible libraries, people are still thinking + is a possibility.
Is everything you're saying still based on that PM you received?
The last one is based on common sense.
Why wouldn't a high performance chip use performance-enhanced 7nm.
Xbox One, PS4, x1s, x1x, Pro all used the high performance version of the node they're on.
28nm hp, 16nm finfet, n7p
Last edited:
We have no details about their RT implementation except it's hardware 'accelerated'. I personnaly find this specific term dubious because for me (since maybe the start of DirectX API) it's has always being associated with DirectX acceleration. And AFAIK they never stated it differently than 'accelerated'. They rarely talked about RT, they didn't showcase it in any of their planned next gen games.
On the other hand, Sony already showcased RT (GTS), talked in length about RT in 2 interviews (even if some have reading comprehension problems, their interviews were clear enough) and specified in different terms how RT is going to be implemented 'in the GPU', 'Hardware based', 'not a software trick' in order to remove any doubts (which MS never done). We even know they are thinking about RT since PS4 minimum (maybe also before on PS3 I think I read that on B3D), they published several patents years ago and finally they even hired a RT expert.
But please tell me where I am wrong. I think I just stated the facts that are public without imagining stuff. On what basis some think Microsoft will have a superior RT solution than Sony ?
Only thing I’ve heard is in a couple of YouTube videos from Paul @ RedGamingTech. He seems to have pretty good sources, particularly with AMD, and he’s said a couple of times that he’s heard that the MS RT solution is ‘a bit more advanced’ than the Sony one. Complete rumour and Paul is the first to say take it with a truckload of salt.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
"More advanced" doesn't necessarily mean higher performance or even better perceived quality.
Right, that's reserved for the adjective "Sony's".
They've said it's "hardware accelerated RT" and this being MS, it's clearly DXR acceleration.
There will be only one AMD RT solution for next gen, it's quite clear it is what it is. Of course there's slim chance it's something else than the patent uncovered earlier, but it's unlikely, and even then it would be whatever AMD is putting in their own GPUs.
Only way MS could have superior RT solution to Sony or vice versa (other than performance of course since that can differ easily on "same" solution) would be one of them not using the AMD solution and for this Sony is apparently more likely candidate, but personally think it's highly unlikely either would use anything but what AMD is offering.
edit: about PS4 Pro, Sony never said it's "Polaris based", they said it uses "many new features from the Polaris architecture as well as several even beyond it".
There's few different possibilities, but either the 2xFP16 was trivial change or the gfx complex is Vega rather than Polaris. Think of AMD GPUs as Lego bricks, they have bunch of different bricks which are interchangeable and can work together (and to my understanding CUs aren't separate block, but rather part of bigger GFX block which would tie said block to specific architecture. Probably best recent example of this is the Intel "Vega", it's graphics block is Polaris, it's HBCC memory controller was first introduced in Vega and who knows which versions of vce, vcd, display controller and so on it includes
Last edited:
From a design/market perspective I'm a bit disappointed in the PS5 logo.
The style worked great for PS3 slim and PS4 but it looks a bit off balance with the 5. The spacing difference between the top and bottom of the S and 5, relative to the spacing of the P to the S just looks off.
The thickness of some of the lines and the exact placement of the curves on the 5 don't look right either.
Less is often more and coherency in brand identity is important, but this just strikes me as dull and unimaginative; and when it comes to down-to-the-pixel adjustments, poorly executed..
It's almost exactly what we've been seeing mock ups and concept designs for the last 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did a design a little back and while I'm often strongly averse to italics in logos, I found the shifted, slightly more futuristic look to work really well as long as many small adjustments were made to the thickness of the lines, spacing and exact placement of curves.
I find it makes the 5 more coherent with the rest of it; and it differentiates the PS5 from prior consoles without breaking brand uniformity or looking to garish.
More Variations
The style worked great for PS3 slim and PS4 but it looks a bit off balance with the 5. The spacing difference between the top and bottom of the S and 5, relative to the spacing of the P to the S just looks off.
The thickness of some of the lines and the exact placement of the curves on the 5 don't look right either.
Less is often more and coherency in brand identity is important, but this just strikes me as dull and unimaginative; and when it comes to down-to-the-pixel adjustments, poorly executed..
It's almost exactly what we've been seeing mock ups and concept designs for the last 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did a design a little back and while I'm often strongly averse to italics in logos, I found the shifted, slightly more futuristic look to work really well as long as many small adjustments were made to the thickness of the lines, spacing and exact placement of curves.
I find it makes the 5 more coherent with the rest of it; and it differentiates the PS5 from prior consoles without breaking brand uniformity or looking to garish.
More Variations
Last edited:
Easily Best Post of the thread!
It's less recognizable, therefore the wrong choice.From a design/market perspective I'm a bit disappointed in the PS5 logo.
The style worked great for PS3 slim and PS4 but it looks a bit off balance with the 5. The spacing difference between the top and bottom of the S and 5, relative to the spacing of the P to the S just looks off.
The thickness of some of the lines and the exact placement of the curves on the 5 don't look right either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did a design a little back and while I'm often strongly averse to italics in logos, I found the shifted, slightly more futuristic look to work really well as long as many small adjustments were made to the thickness of the lines, spacing and exact placement of curves. I find it makes the 5 more coherent with the rest of it; and it differentiates the PS5 from prior consoles without breaking brand uniformity or looking to garish.
More Variations
Whether it could be modernized is not the issue, it's about brand recognition.
By this point I think it's just utilitarian. The style being consistent across three generations makes the font as much part of the brand recognition. The banality of it probably works in PS's favour, because it doesn't really need any flashy 'hey look at me'-ness; everyone knows PlayStation.
It also doesn't look dated yet. Maybe at some point it'll look gauche, like those 'modern' looking 80s fonts now look so horribly clumsy and retro. But for 2020, PS5's logo doesn't strike me as a negative. I guess more noise could have been generated with the big reveal by going with some new logo but, as I say, at this point in the brand, fifth one in, it's like Coca-Cola - the logo doesn't need to change because the message isn't changing. It's old faithfully. It's the same box you always had.
What do you mean, because DXR is an API not an implementation.
So I don't know why that would by default mean default AMD RT solution.
In general, all APIs that do graphics tend to be about offloading processing to the specific hardware that is required to perform the task. Under a fallback of not having the hardware acceleration, emulation is available, but under no means would that ever be considered 'direct X acceleration'.
With respect to DXR which is an extension of DX12, hardware acceleration occurs on the data structure. As of today, you must be able to update and traverse the data structure using hardware acceleration in order for it to be considered hardware accelerated.
I believe that For Xbox to leverage DXR in XSX and not have hardware acceleration for ray tracing but still flag the drivers as if it does would result in some insanely heavy penalties to performance. You may as well not even talk about RT because you're going to have such deplorable performance. You'd be much better off likely letting developers write their own RT code than to leave it to generic drivers to perform.
Last edited:
Well yeah one thing that hasn't really been talked about is if AMD's RT hardware scales with the size of the chip like Nvidia's does.... then it's possible XSX ends up with more "RT cores" and therefore better "RT performance"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
