Current Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is that for real? If so, it is very interesting but I tend to be skeptical of unknown twitter users and their info.

I don't know but he said the patent looks like something linked to VRS and from my point of view it looks like this too.

ElhTjkxXEAAVzoX
 
From this, it was confirmed that 2022 was included.

AMD's projections tend to be conservative so it could be earlier or, barring a delay more serious than they expect, up to the end of 2022.

I'm aware that this is what Anandtech has been told, but it's not what's been happening in practice. These are the roadmaps shown during 2019:

BLq9Sep.jpg
81634tG.jpg


Both Zen 3 and RDNA2 are releasing their first models before 2021.
As such, it's reasonable to expect RDNA3 on 5nm to release before 2022, even if AMD don't want to compromise on that.

Wouldn't surprise me they said it's "inclusive" just in case there's delays for whatever reason. So far they've always delivered as if the latter year marks the start of said year, not end.
 
It's very possible that xbox GDK is pretty far behind, and not just specifically for the new headline features either.

I don't really want to bring Dirt 5 up, but did the XSX version look to have implemented all the things that was highlighted by code masters?
Not saying if it hasn't, won't be there in a patch.
We know both support hardware RT, the only thing we don't know is the performance and if there's any tweaks to implementation.

We don't know how far behind or lacking in features the GDK is do we? We do know that PS5's dev is basically the PS4's with extra bits slapped on, so it was really familiar to Devs and they could get going quickly.
 
If PS5 had this, sounds cool although we would need to see the actual impact.
And how much above and beyond in terms of performance and/or IQ is it beyond doing it manually in two steps of Mesh Shader then VRS.

RDNA has improved culling in the front-end. Per the whitepaper:
Each primitive unit has been enhanced and supports culling up to two primitives per clock, twice as fast as the prior generation. One primitive per clock is output to the rasterizer. The work distribution algorithm in the command processor has also been tuned to distribute vertices and tessellated polygons more evenly between the different shader arrays, boosting throughput for geometry.

PS5 would have an advantage with the higher clocks, but I think it would mainly amount to just reducing the bottleneck in that stage of the rendering pipeline in multiplatform titles.

That said, there can certainly be compute culling methods implemented as well that maybe has better knowledge of what to cull in the game, such as with idtech7 or Frostbite.
 
According to RGT they have designed (or co-designed) their own Geometry Engine and it will be included into RDNA3. This is most probably what Cerny was talking about in his Road to PS5.

They also have their own version of VRS (using the new GE) which should be a better way to do it than MS's VRS.

I don't see how you could replicate VRS using the geometry engine, as VRS tier 2 requires shader time decision making on how you process coverage of geometry that has already gone past the geometry stage in the pipleline.

I also have no confidence whatsoever in RGT's claim that Sony's Geometry Engine is replacing the current line of technology that's resulted in RDNA2. That would make no sense, as RDNA3 won't be in consoles and needs to support DX12U and Mesh Shading, and be an evolution of what they're bring to the PC in RDNA2. Furthermore, for RGT to have had this info months ago would require them to have a source inside the most sensitive part of AMD chip development labs, at a time when they (RGT) are still fumbling around talking in vague terms about hardware that's been in the hands of actual developers for months.

And this is definitely not what Cerny was talking about in Road to PS5, as Cerny was crystal clear and very specific that we should look for a product that appears at the same time to bear the fruits of their collaboration. That would not be an entire GPU generation - and probably ~18 months - after the arrival of PS5.

Is that for real? If so, it is very interesting but I tend to be skeptical of unknown twitter users and their info.

What he's saying is an incoherent mess.

- VRS is not about altering effective resolution by screen location. You could force it to do just that, but it's fundamentally far more controllable than that.
- The Geometry Engine is almost certainly not there to "procedurally generate high quality textures" (wat??)
- VRS isn't supposed to be a substitute for removing unnecessary geometry, that's one of the things programmable "mesh shaders" are there for (which in DX12U supersede Vertex shaders and Geometry shaders).

Well, if it's legit then great!

The patents are legit. The interpretations of what they mean leave much to be desired.
 
To me it's probably the case that SFS isn't there because look at the raw specs of the PS5 storage system. Not sure if there is total overlap between the two in terms of what it's doing/performance impact.... but maybe Sony diverged there to get the chip quicker to develop the cooling system/get dev kits out quicker.
 
To me it's probably the case that SFS isn't there because look at the raw specs of the PS5 storage system. Not sure if there is total overlap between the two in terms of what it's doing/performance impact.... but maybe Sony diverged there to get the chip quicker to develop the cooling system/get dev kits out quicker.
Not being a dick, but there's two different things.
SFS which is an xbox exclusive feature, as in its not in RDNA2.
SF is what you mean, which is in RDNA2.
 
I don't see how you could replicate VRS using the geometry engine, as VRS tier 2 requires shader time decision making on how you process coverage of geometry that has already gone past the geometry stage in the pipleline.

I also have no confidence whatsoever in RGT's claim that Sony's Geometry Engine is replacing the current line of technology that's resulted in RDNA2. That would make no sense, as RDNA3 won't be in consoles and needs to support DX12U and Mesh Shading, and be an evolution of what they're bring to the PC in RDNA2. Furthermore, for RGT to have had this info months ago would require them to have a source inside the most sensitive part of AMD chip development labs, at a time when they (RGT) are still fumbling around talking in vague terms about hardware that's been in the hands of actual developers for months.

And this is definitely not what Cerny was talking about in Road to PS5, as Cerny was crystal clear and very specific that we should look for a product that appears at the same time to bear the fruits of their collaboration. That would not be an entire GPU generation - and probably ~18 months - after the arrival of PS5.



What he's saying is an incoherent mess.

- VRS is not about altering effective resolution by screen location. You could force it to do just that, but it's fundamentally far more controllable than that.
- The Geometry Engine is almost certainly not there to "procedurally generate high quality textures" (wat??)
- VRS isn't supposed to be a substitute for removing unnecessary geometry, that's one of the things programmable "mesh shaders" are there for (which in DX12U supersede Vertex shaders and Geometry shaders).



The patents are legit. The interpretations of what they mean leave much to be desired.

Screen location can be anything 2x2 or other size of pixel and can probably be done by primitive too. Here it means shade pixel at different rate by altering rasterization parameter.

I don't care of his explanation but about the patent.
 
Screen location can be anything 2x2 or other size of pixel and can probably be done by primitive too. Here it means shade pixel at different rate by altering rasterization parameter.

I don't care of his explanation but about the patent.
Seems ideal for front end changes, it's definitely possible any work Sony did with the front end could show up in RDNA 3.

But the impact is somewhat muted by the fact that we continue to move further away from the front end and into compute.
It's just very difficult to keep up with the number of concurrent threads that can be crunched by compute.
 
Seems ideal for front end changes, it's definitely possible any work Sony did with the front end could show up in RDNA 3.

But the impact is somewhat muted by the fact that we continue to move further away from the front end and into compute.
It's just very difficult to keep up with the number of concurrent threads that can be crunched by compute.

I don't think it is RDNA 3 maybe it is custom to Sony I just comment about the patent.

I don't care about all this story about RDNA 1, RDNA 2, RDNA 3 but about the feature set and the patent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top