They did so during the 360 and to a considerable extent the Xbox One generation. In fact this gen they had planned on a cheaper smaller cylindrical shaped XSX for this year according to FTC leaks but this must have changed after the Activision acquisition. I wouldnt be surprised if they release a much cheaper Series X in the next 2 years when it becomes more feasible.
Series X Refresh and Next Generation Xbox Hardware
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Saidur_Ali
Newcomer
I thought Blackwell is based on custom version of TSMC N4P for Nvidia. PS5 Pro has a good chance of using N4P too like potentially RDNA 4 so might be one of the best performance per watt gaming devices money can buy this year. If they did port Zen 2 over to that process, maybe there is a chance for a revision of the PS5 Slim to get smaller in the future and reduce cost. Will be disappointing if Pro is still on 6nm. Anyway, will be good to see how AMD compare versus Nvidia early next year on potentially very similar node with monolithic chips in terms of performance per watt although Nvidia will have the GDDR7 advantage.
Isn't the Series consoles RDNA 1.1 compute units vs RDNA 2 compute units for PS5? Could be one of reasons why PS5 represents incredible value that with a BOM similar to Series S, can outperform the Series X. Series S represents extremely poor value even though it is advertised as best value at least in terms of performance as currently for just 13% more in price in the UK (Soon to be maybe 5% more), you are getting more than 250% in compute and sizeable increase in RAM. Xbox One S and X were significantly more competitive consoles than the Series consoles even with record hardware subsidies from Microsoft for Xbox this generation (Even just year one subsidy alone was similar to current value of Ubisoft and over six times the purchase price of Insomniac Games for Sony). Series S would need to be close to 8TF, 16GB RAM, double SSD speed, USB speed and a generation newer Wi-Fi at its current price point to be similar value to the One S was relative to PS4 hence why I think it is struggling to sell. That also had a 4K Blu-ray player advantage over the PS4 and was regularly sold at a huge discount over the PS4, this has no option of a disc drive at all. Will be interesting to see if Series S is now 6nm too.
This might be last generation Microsoft will be providing large subsidies for consoles unless they change their mind so that is good news for Sony and Nintendo as they can now compete more on an equal footing. That in a way works out for Microsoft too as there should be healthy amount of platforms to sell games on as now thin and light devices are capable enough to run AAA games well enough. Even Switch successor might allow developers more RAM than they are allowed as a minimum on the Series consoles so they can maybe have two player modes that they can't run on Series consoles due to lack of RAM and parity clause. One of the benefits of having weakest hardware this generation is that it should help them get a large library of games running on their handheld too with a lot less difficulty than it would have been otherwise and should make Switch successor have easier time of getting ports too which could be lucrative for them with all the big publishers they have acquired.
They tried to be loss leader and spend PlayStation out of business but it just ended up with a lot of layoffs at Xbox instead to foot the bill as it seems like Microsoft is now pressuring them to be a profitable business. They sold a lot more consoles than they would have done otherwise though, really helped them in previous generations too being able to lose billions on hardware to compete as I think they would be dead as a console maker if regulators forced console sellers not to be able to sell consoles at a loss to allow smaller players into this market.
This is likely last revision of Series X. In a couple years time, they should be releasing a handheld and a premium PC like Xbox console and maybe by third party partners like Asus going by the rumours. They might be using NPU upscaling like AutoSR. Going by what Mark Cerny said, that they motivated AMD to improve RT, Xbox might be using the same solution so could be just a faster framerate console thanks to Zen 5 cores and higher quality assets (GDDR7) over something like PS5 Pro rather than a true generational leap that brings more of a step over what can be done currently. Maybe they will update specs of their PC console around the time of PS6 launch so they remain competitive. It might work out for them if it ends up being a cheaper PC alternative if it allows the full Windows experience. However, I think Windows PC OEMs won't be too happy if it starts cannibalising their PC sales. If they just allow certain approved launchers, then it might be more niche if there is no hardware subsidy but they could could find their market more so with the handheld but will be tough competition against Switch successor and all the other handhelds out there.
Possibly, but the gaming chips aren't out yet and the server chips have just started shipping (or are they even shipping really more than samples yet?)
No, Xbox Series X|S are full RDNA 2 (they don't use ∞$ but that's not requiremet to be RDNA 2), PS5 is "RDNA 1.5" aka missing some features of RDNA 2 (frontend/geometry if memory serves)
Saidur_Ali
Newcomer
I think they are getting announced in CES 2025.
The actual compute units I believe are RDNA 1.1 hence why much lower clocks than RDNA 2 compute units like PS5. I think older RDNA has slightly more IPC though so it is not all bad.
Obviously PS5 is not DirectX 12 Ultimate device because they have their own standards they are aiming for. I think main difference is PS5 does not have not have the RB+ of RDNA 2 hence why PS5 clocks are probably more limited, as Cerny said they had to cap it at 2.23 GHz. Series S and X has this RB+ and an enhanced process node over RDNA hence why it can offer competitive clocks with RDNA at a better efficiency. It would have been odd if Microsoft Series consoles weren't DX12U compliant given it is the goals they had set themselves so makes sense they waited for their featureset to be ready.
PS5 is like a RDNA 2 GPU with some older features from previous generations while Series consoles looks to be a RDNA GPU with RDNA 2 features.
PS5 also lacks RDNA2 support for DP4a (int8 / int4 and mixed precision), and also lacks RDNA 2's newer ROPs, so can't support hardware VRS. And that wasn't because Sony didn't want these things - PS5 Pro has them now they are available to Sony - it's because PS5's design predates RDNA2. It's mostly a contemporary of the 5700XT, but with some later changes.
As far as I've seen, the only RDNA2 specific feature that PS5 has is RT support, which wasn't originally there because it's not part of RDNA1. Cerny wisely delayed PS5 to make some changes including adding RT support. In almost every other way it's RDNA1.
IIRC, PS5 has the earliest version number of any RDNA design, earlier even than the 5700XT. It was an intended design there at the beginning, when god made the heaven and the earth and the RDNA. It almost certainly came so much later because the PS5 was delayed. PS5 also has the very first, earliest implementation of RT hardware - lower in version number than any RDNA 2 design (1.0 vs 1.1 in PC / Xbox).
The absolute balls on Sony to claim PS5 is RDNA2. It's paid off for them though. Xbox has more features but MS's "everything everywhere" approach to games means they don't get used, while Sony's studios make excellent use of all the features of the PS5.
Whatever MS do with next gen, they need to make sure they have software that uses the features of the hardware to try and sell the platform. No-one will give a shit if the next Xbox has a powerful NPU if MS either don't use it or use to try and provide you targetted adverts.
raytracingfan
Newcomer
That's a very creative way of writing Infinity Cache.
Blade Brown
Newcomer
Lisa Su called PS5 RDNA2 as well…
Nope, it's RDNA 2 through and through. There's no such thing as "RDNA 1.1".
PS5 Compute Units miss the DP4a capability as mentioned.
It's called marketing. It's "close enough" and "RDNA 1.5" (or any other 1.x for that matter) isn't official term anywhere.Lisa Su called PS5 RDNA2 as well…
Lisa Su called PS5 RDNA2 as well…
Right, because she's going to contradict AMD's largest semi-custom customer, and go on stage in 2021 just after PS5 launches and say PS5 is actually RDNA1 ... but with a hugely significant later roadmap feature added in after initial specifications were set, and that it was due to Mark Cerny reassessing the features that were needed. There's more chance of Lisa Su self immolating than going on stage and saying that.
The actual development of these consoles, what happened, when, and why is far more interesting than platform advocates (who don't really care about anything else) blindly throwing marketing designations around.
It shuts down conversation about relationships between console vendors and design companies like AMD, the development of GPU technologies and their roadmaps, and the importance of individual decision makers (like the top chap that is Mark Cerny). It also obfuscates operational issues in companies, including the difference between making hardware (which MS and Sony are good at) and making use of hardware (which Sony are better at, due to what they focus on).
Blade Brown
Newcomer
Was actually before 2021…And before the PS5 launched. I’m not here to argue what you’re saying, just pointing out her words.
Yes, of course they'll call it RDNA 2, it's marketing. But we also know that it lacks some things every other RDNA2 chip (XSX|S included) have.
Four to five months after Series consoles were revealed as being RDNA2, PS5 was promoted to being RDNA 2 despite lacking all the features of RDNA2, apart from the original (slightly pre RDNA2) version of RT.
Blade Brown
Newcomer
You guys are right, Lisa Su…Wrong.
Noted.
Noted.
This is Beyond3D.
Cappuccino
Newcomer
How do you square this with PS5 missing RDNA2 features?
Tbh if we wanted to be contrarian I’d say that neither console is fully RDNA2 since they lack infinity cache, but architecture wise both are roughly RDNA2 with PS5 lacking features that Xbox and Radeon 6000 series got like Dp4a and some niche VRS features, so people call it RDNA1.9.
That's one source, and you have to consider the source's biases for reliability, and then draw in evidence from elsewhere to get a real insight. One real problem is people using 'RDNA n' as an umbrella measure where what's needed is a feature-set listing. Otherwise there's fair reason to describe a GPU as either the metric of it's highest feature, the median of features, or the lowest feature. A GPU with RDNA 2 raytracing and RDNA 1 compute units could be fairly described as RDNA 1 or 2.
That said, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with XB. Can someone direct me to why we're talking PS hardware here?
As I say, the problem is trying to put a number on it when that number is not objective. If they intention is to compare PS5 hardware to XBS, it should be done with objective feature comparisons as you've mentioned there.
Wel,l this is probably coming from a translating by some french site.
∞$ isn't present in AMD's RDNA2 iGPUs either.
Cappuccino
Newcomer
I agree with this sentiment.
