Or they're both using RDNA2 VRS and the software implementations differ
We only have couple patents on the subject, no RDNA2 chips to check if they're applied there.
more precise maybe and some criticism about DXR it seems
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
more precise maybe and some criticism about DXR it seems
DavidGraham
Veteran
This strongly implies Sony is indeed using a different RT solution from the DXR ones.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
Seems to imply they are using AMD solution as well (since he is disagreeing on how it will work with RDNA2 RT).
No when he has a question about transparency it is very precise because transparency does not work well with RTX/DXR. This is coming from a presentation at GDC about Unreal Engine and raytracing.
No when he has a question about transparency it is very precise because transparency does not work well with RTX/DXR. This is coming from a presentation at GDC about Unreal Engine and raytracing.
Nice catch. So I would take it that this was solved on PS5.
"Solved." Transparency will always cost more, because if you hit a transparent surface with a ray, you have to cast another ray to continue until you hit another transparency and repeat until you hit something opaque. I imagine there are optimizations there, but there is going to be blending of multiple hits from multiple materials, each of which can be affected by indirect light, reflection and so on and so on.
I got that feeling as well, especially from his earlier tweet. Sounds to me, Matt was hinting in roundabout manner, that PS5 RT solution might not have these potential issues.
hmmm... could this really mean he implies PS5 has RT power 4 x 2080Ti ?
Well, i speculated myself Sony could have more RT power for the (speculated) lesser TF, but this sounds a bit like bragging.
It's almost like saying RTX mobile beats next gen, hihi
But 'At what distance from the frustum'... gives me hope they care about LOD. Give me just that and i'm happy.
Still unsure about custom HW. All the differences could be on API side but still enough to poke each other. E.g. 'patented VRS' really sounds constructed for marketing to me.
vjPiedPiper
Newcomer
Sorry, do you have a source or link for this info?
I understand that it is strongly rumored that AMD will change the CCX configuration, but there is no 100% official information saying so?
Past performance is no guarantee of future trends, but Intel's later GPUs tended to have some of the broadest DX feature level compliance when they were introduced.
That could change, if there were further disruptions in development or RT somehow required more pervasive changes. Something like VRS seems like it fits in the area of the more fixed-function domain that Intel was generally willing to evolve and expand upon in the past.
The current gen put custom format support and internal tweaks to the GPU. Backwards compatibility at the current level would encourage porting those tweaks into the next gen at least.
I think people were fixating on the visible results at the end of the pipeline, rather than viewing these projects part of an ongoing process that allows for internal changes long after the initial products are finalized.
The current gen wasn't constrained to match Tahiti, and since it was in development around the same time as Bonaire and Hawaii, there was continued evolution within that lineage rather than GCN1. Tahiti had to be locked down far earlier than the Sea Islands and the consoles needed to be.
It seems reasonable now that we're getting rumors of an RDNA2 discrete in 2020 that the consoles in 2020 would have a good change of sharing IP with a product coming out in roughly the same time frame rather than the prior one.
If RDNA2 is a change in the architecture, it might also provide a more bug-fixed foundation for the consoles. Perpetuating some of the GFX10 bug flags for 6 more years seems iffy to me.
The other GCN labels coincided with ISA changes, as such, I don't think AMD separated Polaris from Tonga/Fiji.
Bobcat to Jaguar included a change in the pipeline length, units, cache hierarchy, and ISA support. Puma was more of a port that didn't change those factors.
The Hygon product might be considered different if there are some elements that were removed for export or were removed/replaced for the purposes of compliance with the client nation's policies. For example, the on-die security setup and management hardware designed in a US-controlled setting may not be desirable to the Chinese market.
Perhaps there's a hint of that. Though it seems like a more neutral questioning of the practical impact of PR using technical buzzwords without covering real-world applications and challenges.
I think this trying to be more neutral without tipping anyone's hand. I think the statement means that meeting an API's requirements is not the same as operating the same below the level of the abstraction, and that the current API is not the last word on the topic as these standards are part of an ongoing development process.
I read this just as someone asking about the practical implications of things. I would not at all read anything into it about "ps5".
4K 60 means nothing, for example, as even an RTX 2060 could do 4K 60 with RT on since the sentence has no qualifiers for anything. "what content? What type of rays? How many rays? What type of scene complexity"?
Just reads like rhetorical questions, for the sake of, rhetorical questions.
Yeah, makes sense. Could be he is working on other things, does not know details about PS5 RT, is just asking and no poking / bragging intended.
I also see now how one could read it as a hint for custom Sony RT, or Sony not using RDNA2 but showing curiosity about MS doing so.
I'm left in confusion and uncertainty, which probably wasn't his goal either
If PS5 GPU was RDNA 2 based, why would a Sony PS5 software engineer be asking "rhetorical questions" about possible RT related issues right after Xbox announcement of having RDNA 2 based GPU? Doesn't make any sense to me. Why would he ask very specific questions about RT related methods relating to RDNA 2, if PS5 has such features? Either Sony engineers have no clue how to resolve these specific issues, or PS5 GPU isn't RDNA 2, but something else.
Also, in some of his following replies he hinted towards why he was asking such questions.
Last edited:
If you aren't told the guy is a Sony software engineer, it definitely reads like general curiosity. If you are told the guy is a Sony software engineer, it takes on a whole load more meaning. If Sony are using RDNA 2 RTRT, he should presumably know the answer to these things as 'principle software engineer' working on stuff that needs to know about RTRT. Hence no need to ask. And if PS5 is not using RDNA 2, then the purpose of these questions is what? They aren't particularly technical.
Exactly.
Even if Sony is using RDNA2 the software (API) implementation can be different enough to warrant these kinds of questions, especially since isn't MS using bog standard DX12, which isn't crafted to exact RDNA specs, on Xbox now?
Well, the guy could be doubting the general purpose of RT at the moment for gaming and asked if they solved the issues in a slightly rhetorical fashion to counteract the RT hype
That's how I interpret it at the moment.
You have internal teams and discussions on such matters, not a "we cant figure this shit out" tweet. This isn't some random Sony employee sweeping floors, but a 'principle software engineer' working on PS5. Even if these questions were relevant to such API differences, I'm pretty sure Sony doesn't want their internal teams talking about such matters at this stage.
Well, the guy could be doubting the general purpose of RT at the moment for gaming and asked if they solved the issues in a slightly rhetorical fashion to counteract the RT hype
Why would a Sony employee deflate a key next-generation checkbox feature that his employer (Sony) will obviously be pushing, on selling units?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
