Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]

[Shifty Geezer]

how would devs be able to implement it if it infringes of a patent.

Depends on the patent. Let's be honest - when has anything patented in the computer/gaming space stopped a tech concept from propagating? You'd think finger-print detection in a phone would be easily patentable and very solid, so only one device (iPhone) would have it for the next 20 years, and yet its ubiquitous.

I find it as unlikely that MS has a monopoly on VRS as nVidia has a monopoly on hardware RT acceleration. Just as we all expect AMD to have a RTRT solution, we should expect Sony and everyone else to have VRS somehow.

 

[milk]

Regardless of how VRS ends up seeing the light of day, ONLY PS5 can claim to support VCS on console-space.
Their patented Variable Clock Shenanigans.

 

[eastmen]

Depends on the patent. Let's be honest - when has anything patented in the computer/gaming space stopped a tech concept from propagating? You'd think finger-print detection in a phone would be easily patentable and very solid, so only one device (iPhone) would have it for the next 20 years, and yet its ubiquitous.

I find it as unlikely that MS has a monopoly on VRS as nVidia has a monopoly on hardware RT acceleration. Just as we all expect AMD to have a RTRT solution, we should expect Sony and everyone else to have VRS somehow.

I'd imagine with finger prints there were dozens of companies making finger print reading machines even back in the 80s. So it was all patented anyway. So adding it to something like the iPhone would get you a new patent .

Like how would apple get a patent for something that existed on cell phones since 2004 ?

 

[function]

I find it as unlikely that MS has a monopoly on VRS as nVidia has a monopoly on hardware RT acceleration. Just as we all expect AMD to have a RTRT solution, we should expect Sony and everyone else to have VRS somehow.

MS don't have a patent on VRS as a concept, just a particular implementation of it. Nvidia have their own, at least according to the interwebs.

Sony may have their own patents too, but that doesn't mean it will make its way into Sony's RDNA2 based console.

There could be all manner of potential IP and engineering issues relating to integrating other forms of VRS into RDNA.

Hopefully an efficient version of VRS is in PS5, but it's not just as simple as scanning a design or patent document and Ctrl+C -> Crtl+V into a chip design!

 

[PSman1700]

There could be all manner of potential IP and engineering issues relating to integrating other forms of VRS into RDNA.

Yes lets hope its there.

 

[temesgen]

When RDNA2 lands on PC we'll probably see in an Anandtech deep dive whether AMD have their own VRS implementation / patent that doesn't infringe on or use MS's implementation / patents.

If AMD have done this independently, it's quite likely Sony will have that. But it does raise the question of why MS went to the trouble of using their own version of it, if it's in every RDNA2 based system anyway.

Couldn't the term VRS simply be a reference to the MS API that uses the RDNA tech? Perhaps geometry engine is the equivalent on PlayStation?

 

[BRiT]

Perhaps geometry engine is the equivalent on PlayStation?

No.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hopefully an efficient version of VRS is in PS5, but it's not just as simple as scanning a design or patent document and Ctrl+C -> Crtl+V into a chip design!

Oh indeed. My point isn't that no-one gives a shit about patents and clones them, but patented solutions are typically one way to solve the problem and by using others, the same problem can still be solved and same feature added. If MS has patented a way to do VRS, someone finding a different way to do it can still implement VRS, same as IHVs still being able to add realtime RT hardware to GPUs despite ImgTec being first. It's not like ImgTec could patent "method and apparatus to add raytracing acceleration into a digital image processing unit" and lock the idea down until 2035.

 

[function]

Couldn't the term VRS simply be a reference to the MS API that uses the RDNA tech? Perhaps geometry engine is the equivalent on PlayStation?

To expand on Brit's point above, geometry work (lod, culling, working out which polys you can skip / combine / whatever a GE might allow you to do) happens before you get to the shading part.

After you work out what geometry you want to try and draw, then you tackle how you distribute fragment shading work for best results.

 

[function]

Oh indeed. My point isn't that no-one gives a shit about patents and clones them, but patented solutions are typically one way to solve the problem and by using others, the same problem can still be solved and same feature added. If MS has patented a way to do VRS, someone finding a different way to do it can still implement VRS, same as IHVs still being able to add realtime RT hardware to GPUs despite ImgTec being first. It's not like ImgTec could patent "method and apparatus to add raytracing acceleration into a digital image processing unit" and lock the idea down until 2035.

Oh yeah, I agree.

My thought is that the realities of dodging patents, while trying to fit customisation into multi-year technology roadmaps you're piggybacking on, while also managing engineering costs and timelines, means that some technologies may become practically out of reach.

Or maybe not? I just think that while being really smart, and having awesome ideas out the wazoo, due to a number of combined factors VRS might not be practically available Sony. But that's just a thought! I do hope Sony have it for everyone's sakes.

Oh boy, those were long sentences.

 

[Mitchings]

I've had a gander around and can't find where on earth I read it, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure I read that Sony have patents/documentation on what is effectively an implementation of VRS and that MS actually reference Sony's patents in one of their own documents for VRS.

 

[temesgen]

To expand on Brit's point above, geometry work (lod, culling, working out which polys you can skip / combine / whatever a GE might allow you to do) happens before you get to the shading part.

After you work out what geometry you want to try and draw, then you tackle how you distribute fragment shading work for best results.

Thanks for that, I've seen people linking the two and haven't really seen a good explanation for what the geometry engine does.

 

[Proelite]

I've had a gander around and can't find where on earth I read it, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure I read that Sony have patents/documentation on what is effectively an implementation of VRS and that MS actually reference Sony's patents in one of their own documents for VRS.

Microsoft: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180047203A1/en.
Sony: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9836816B2/en

Patent citations are there to provide argument that your patent is not the same thing as those in the prior art. I.e. these patents sounds similar but we already know about them and they're already different. Your new one can be new use or improvement patent. The patents cited can be yours or others.

More on this: https://minesoft.com/2016/02/19/the-power-of-patent-citations/

Looking at Sony's patents, they're all related to foveated rendering, which is dependent on where your eyes are looking.

MS's is VRS as we currently know it, based on areas of screen with low detail/contrast.

 

[Barrabas]

https://www.techpowerup.com/253227/...chnique-for-console-vr-performance-domination

"Not only in letting consoles achieve much higher pixel density does this tech work, but it can also allow for a performance democratization for VR, where higher frames per second are necessary to offset some side effects of that kind of gaming - and where Sony seems to be betting on as an evolutionary focus in the years to come"

Hopefully something to add to the discussion.

 

[iroboto]

Anyway, the correct position to take is that PS5 has it until proven otherwise as opposed to it doesn’t have it until proven otherwise.

I can’t imagine it not having it; but Sony hasn’t been great at communicating anything and everyone else could just be waiting on them before saying anything.

case in point cyber2077.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/cyberpunk-2077-wont-release-for-ps5xbox-series-x-w/1100-6475884/
Nowakowski also reiterated that Sony hasn't said whether PS5 will support enhanced PS4 games (like Microsoft already has for Xbox Series X and Xbox One) so there's no official word for whether PS5 will be able to play an enhanced PS4 version of Cyberpunk 2077. CD Projekt Red has already confirmed that an update for Cyberpunk 2077 will allow Xbox One users to upgrade to an Xbox Series X enhanced version for free, but the same can't be said for PS4 and PS5 (for now).

 

[milk]

Thanks for that, I've seen people linking the two and haven't really seen a good explanation for what the geometry engine does.

I'm pretty sure it's basically a rebranding of what AMD's "Next Gen Geometry Pipeline" was supposed to be when they first revealed that feature way back when.

 

[liem107]

It is obviously too late to change the soc for Sony, but with the very negative coverage of the reveal...
.I wonder if, with the depressed market and likely lower than normal demand this holiday... if Sony could try to make another spin to try to improve yields and get a higher count of CU. Their SOC has probably something like 40 CU and 4 disabled? Could they gamble and try to get a 40 CU SOC without killing their BOM?
Even if they get a relatively low number of consoles, I doubt the market has the same demand as a normal holiday season... would it be a viable option?

 

[BRiT]

So you want them to delay until Holiday 2021? That's pretty much what a new respin would do, push out all validation testing and case design and software api's etc.

 

[liem107]

So you want them to delay until Holiday 2021? That's pretty much what a new respin would do, push out all validation testing and case design and software api's etc.

Do you really need a re validation when you roll out a new revision of the same chip? Does the API change?

 

[BRiT]

Do you really need a re validation when you roll out a new revision of the same chip? Does the API change?

You could always just roll the dice and hope nothing catches on fire.

Catching and fixing problems before they hit production saves you millions. The testing is absolutely required.

If you had any structures/counters/indexes sized for 36 CUs as the high you might need to adjust the software.