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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jay said:
Was that reshade or actually native?

That vid just got me thinking if they plan to do something similar to their x enhanced games. Where it's only for specific titles, and what is possible in that scenario.
As unlike general BC, they have to get specific sign of on the improvements they make, and do more detailed play throughs I believe.
Click to expand...
I mean, it would be costly, and the would want to have it in their game.
I'm not sure if MS or the studios would be interested in investing in this money to do it unless somehow it's going to equate to even more sales.
 
iroboto said:
I mean, it would be costly, and the would want to have it in their game.
I'm not sure if MS or the studios would be interested in investing in this money to do it unless somehow it's going to equate to even more sales.
Click to expand...
I would normally agree here, and probably do actually.
But where BC is concerned they seem willing to go above and beyond.
So it wouldn't surprise me if they do so again.

As a USP, it may just be worth it. The odd game with some advanced upgrades.
Where it would be interesting is new sales, people who didn't own Xbox this gen, everytime an x enhanced release came out this gen was a big deal. Second time around maybe not as much but if was substantially upgraded free marketing again regardless of out right sales performance.
 
S
MrFox said:
Is the objection in reference to the old 14+4 suggestion that there were some CU separated and physically different?

The more everything is identical and all data paths equal, the more it can dispatch with maximum occupancy. They'd need a really good reason to split it in two types of CU.
Click to expand...
Pro was split like this or was that just CU shape for layout?

The division if true would suggest they could not make the more pure RDNA 2 cu's bc and so had to split the pool. Seems too coincidental numerically otherwise

Sounds like total fantasy
 
Wasn't the 14 and 4 thing something that MS engineers brought up in an interview? In the interview MS engineers claim they actually considered using all 14 CUs on the chip for XB1 but instead decided an upclock was better for performance, or at least that's what they claimed. Obviously there would've been addition cost if MS decided to use all 14 CUs instead of disabling two for redundancy likey the ended up doing. Here is the quote:
"Sony was actually agreeing with us. They said that their system was balanced for 14 CUs. They used that term: balance. Balance is so important in terms of your actual efficient design. Their additional four CUs are very beneficial for their additional GPGPU work."
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-xbox-one-architects
 
Last edited:
Osirisblack with another brilliant, yet unexpected insight.

This should come as no surprise but I am hearing there definitely will be supply shortages for PSV and XseX as well. Still no word of any sort of delay but they will not be shipping as many units as they initially did with PS4 or XB1.
Click to expand...

He is hearing from his good sources so I guess we should prepare for it. I wonder why would supply for ng consoles be limited all the sudden. Is anything happening in the world that I might not be aware of?
 
Sorry for the lack of a quote, my previous post was in reply to MrFox.
"Is the objection in reference to the old 14+4 suggestion that there were some CU separated and physically different?"
 
AbsoluteBeginner said:
Osirisblack with another brilliant, yet unexpected insight.



He is hearing from his good sources so I guess we should prepare for it. I wonder why would supply for ng consoles be limited all the sudden. Is anything happening in the world that I might not be aware of?
Click to expand...
honestly can't imagine it being an issue unless you were purposely targeting high volume in 2020.
From what I've seen from XSX, I don't see that as the goal. If there is an XSS in the future; I suspect that is the one that will face stock challenges.
 
VitaminB6 said:
Wasn't the 14 and 4 thing something that MS engineers brought up in an interview? In the interview MS engineers claim they actually considered using all 14 CUs on the chip for XB1 but instead decided an upclock was better for performance, or at least that's what they claimed. Obviously there would've been addition cost if MS decided to use all 14 CUs instead of disabling two for redundancy likey the ended up doing. Here is the quote:
"Sony was actually agreeing with us. They said that their system was balanced for 14 CUs. They used that term: balance. Balance is so important in terms of your actual efficient design. Their additional four CUs are very beneficial for their additional GPGPU work."
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-xbox-one-architects
Click to expand...
Yes, they misrepresented sony's words.

Any game was free to use the full gpu for graphics shaders. There was never a separation nor different CUs.

It's worth looking back at Cerny's GDC presentation.... he talked about spreading the gpgpu workload through the holes in the graphics pipeline, maximizing the CU occupancy (what he called fine grain compute).

So it was never a specific number of CU for non-graphics tasks, it was a justification for having more gpu power available than what they thought would be sufficient for typical gfx workloads, for the kind of game engines they expected in the future, and an expectation of gpgpu being a more efficient way of maximising the entire hardware. The term coined was a balanced system.

In retrospect we now have the entire generation to look back an realise who was bullshiting. The 18CU platform was performing as it should, and the 12CU was running lower resolutions by the expected factor. There was no magical esram, or shape, or secret technology bringing performance parity, as Penello was spinning on GAF.
 
According to Colbert on Resetera, the APU die size for PS5 with total of 56CUs (if it's indeed 56CUs) is 381 mm².

According to TSMC you can have 20% more stuff (or 17% area reduction) using 7nm+ instead of 7nm. It would give a theoretical PS5 APU at 381*0.83 = 316 mm². That number reminds me something...

 
Globalisateur said:
According to Colbert on Resetera, the APU die size for PS5 with total of 56CUs (if it's indeed 56CUs) is 381 mm².

According to TSMC you can have 20% more stuff (or 17% area reduction) using 7nm+ instead of 7nm. It would give a theoretical PS5 APU at 381*0.83 = 316 mm². That number reminds me something...
Click to expand...

I think that is in reference to RDNA1 because how does anyone know the size of an RDNA2 CU or how much RT adds to overall die.
 
In a perfect world, Sony could either offer me a $499 11.5-12TF Base PS5 model or $399 10TF Base PS5 for the dirty casuals and a $599 14TF Pro model for the core fans on launch day.
If in the unfortunate circumstance of a $399 9.2TF Base PS5 only, I would still buy it if the games look good, but I just hope they put extra effort into a Pro model this time and really knock it out of the park as a midgen upgrade. I wanna see them pour extra blood and sweat into making a 25TF monster by 2024.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [pre E3 2019] *spawn*
55 56 57
Replies
1K
Views
112K
Globalisateur
Globalisateur
BRiT
The Annual E3 Microsoft press conference thread, 2019 edition
8 9 10
Replies
191
Views
21K
eastmen
E
D
  • Locked
Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
178 179 180
Replies
4K
Views
495K
BRiT
BRiT
Back
Top