And if 36CU is the result of having to reserve some space for holes?
That would be killer It's all by design from the beginnig, Sony wanted a cheap(er), over time, to manufacture console. It seems a proven concept also seeing it's rather indentical to a 5700XT (36CU, same bandwith etc).
Why thrown in performance per watt if you don't know the ps5's watt budget?
Isn’t it strange to get excited about a cooling solution? Don’t get me wrong, I would most likely welcome a silent and efficient cooling system ( I have to use my bose QC 35 with anc to play on my first gen ps4)
However, I mean.. this is a graphics enthusiast forum... isn’t it? For the moment the ps5 seems shockingly underwhelming even with the crazy ssd speed.
I want Sony to release a handheld console that runs PS4 games and then it's already supported by itself.
The narrative with ps4/pro was that it had trash tier cooling so now that it's supposedly much better, people are making a big deal out of it.Isn’t it strange to get excited about a cooling solution? Don’t get me wrong, I would most likely welcome a silent and efficient cooling system ( I have to use my bose QC 35 with anc to play on my first gen ps4)
However, I mean.. this is a graphics enthusiast forum... isn’t it? For the moment the ps5 seems shockingly underwhelming even with the crazy ssd speed.
I do hope Sony has cooked something special in their custom rdna2 specs...they did double the number of ace units in ps4... could they have doubled the ray intersection engine?
I do like the mid range gpu specs to reduce the price ...but I hope they beefed up the raytracing otherwise it will end up with the perfs of the rtx 2080 doing raytracing...without dlss2....which is abysmal in 4k.
The narrative with ps4/pro was that it had trash tier cooling so now that it's supposedly much better, people are making a big deal out of it.
As for it being underwhelming, I'm not sure what you're looking for to get you excited about the product.
Your outlook for RT from these consoles is much more positive than mine.
That would be killer It's all by design from the beginnig, Sony wanted a cheap(er), over time, to manufacture console. It seems a proven concept also seeing it's rather indentical to a 5700XT (36CU, same bandwith etc).
A 5700XT is 40 CUs. This is like a 5700 with 50% perf per watts improvement and a much higher frequency with new features too and probably other customization...;-).
The improvement between RDNA and RDNA 2 is as big as between GCN and RDNA if we believe AMD.
AMD described the architecture and said part of the improvement comes from improvement IPC and higher frequencies. Another part from thermal improvement. It means The PS5 GPU out the clock improvement and the improvement coming from new features will be better than a 5700/5700XT GPU at the same clock. A 10.28 5700XT is inferior to the PS5 GPU.
XSX and PS5 GPU are superior to all current AMD GPU, this seems crazy but this is the reality today if AMD said the truth.
Some Turing GPU seems faster
The 5700XT is already bandlimited and weak with 256 Bit Bus and only 448 Gbyte/s and much more the Ps5 SOC , because you must share the Bandwidth with the Cpu and Tempest Engine .
Ps5 Architecture :
Total - 448 Gbyte/s
minus
Cpu - around 50 Gybyte/s
Tempest Audio Engine 20 Gbyte/s max.
Result : Only 378 Gbyte/s for the GPU and not the full 256 Bit Bus for Graphics.
This is a pretty bad and weak Design they have chosen. So your "proven concept" is the biggest Mistake Sonys Cerny have made it contradict the idea of a fast and efficient Hardwaredesign to eliminate Bottlenecks. Why running the GPU with such a high Clockrate at 2,23 Ghz and struggle on the other Side with pathetic small Datachannels?? For 1080p Resolution its ok but for 4k and Raytraycing i would not put not my Hands into the Fire for that. They can chose 18 Gbps per pin GDDR6 Type Memory with 576 Gbyte/s Busspeed or adding a big Cache to the GPU Frontend. So they going the cheap route again against the Progress of High Fidelity Gaming.
Tell me if im off base with any of that
4 disabled CU's It's darn close all in all. Even in raw performance.
I would take that with a pinch of salt, like usual. If true, it would be a first.
Seems like the same debate as when Windows Central/MS said 'double the power of one x', then everyone went and said it must be less then 12TF because you know, maths and efficiency and all, that debate died quickly. On raw performance numbers, PS5 GPU (at max clocks) is ballpark 5700XT level performance.
On a note though, i certainly hope PS5 GPU will be more powerfull then a 5700XT as it is a 2019 mid-range AMD gpu by all means. But it won't be worlds apart in performance. There are certainly extra features like ray tracing though.Another note, a 5700XT can be clocked higher, too, if you'd want to.
Most of mid/high end turing products are faster then PS5 gpu.
As some noted, it seems the design has some PS4 Pro elements in it. Yes, clocks that high aren't favourable over going wider, as per the DF video, not with RDNA atleast. Like i said, Sony went with another design in mind, cheap to produce, most likely 399 again like PS4, it reflects on the whole hardware, ballpark 10TF, they aimed for mid range hardware like in 2013.
Not it would not be a premiere they did it from GCN to RDNA.
Yes from a 2012 architecture to a 2019 one. Now it's on RDNA with one year between. Those percentages on big slides are mostly not to be taken too seriously, that goes both ways, it's the same for Nvidia's.
Depends, compared to jaguar/2013 consoles, yeah they are more then lions. Compared to todays GPU's for pc it's mid range yes at 10TF.
We have to see Ampere and the official Navi 2 offerings before we make that callyour right. i guess i should differentiate from midrange and underwhelming. both XBSX and PS5's GPU's may be midrange but i think they are worthy full gen upgrades
We have to see Ampere and the official Navi 2 offerings before we make that call