General Next Generation Rumors and Discussions [Post GDC 2020]

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by BRiT, Mar 18, 2020.

  1. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,477
    Likes Received:
    10,164
    Location:
    The North
    I read over some of the interview and it comes across like perhaps he hasn’t run production code yet; I’m unsure. It does sound like he may have had access to PS5 and not yet XSX.

    anyway; we will know the truth in 6 months. DF does a better job in proving things imo; at least they do the basic ground work to test things. In this case Richard has done a good job with RDNA1 to showcase performance differences between CU vs Clocks. I can’t get a read on whether this engineer actually has hands on.

    The guaranteed speed for XSX is 2.4GB/s.
    MS did not provide an optimal number. Nor did they present the fastest number. They only provided the guaranteed number; which may also be their fastest number, this is likely the case. This was in alignment with choosing fixed clocks. And in alignment with showcasing their split pool memory. They left it out there transparently for developers to weigh in. They were bound to get some negative feedback from developers.

    If enough developers cry enough; just do the simple thing and make the remaining 4 chips 2GB and be done with it (which I believe is the devkit setup)
     
    Silenti, AzBat, BRiT and 2 others like this.
  2. pTmdfx

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    177
    Yes, but I am specifically responding to this context:

    This is your speculation, and my whole point is that RDNA 2 would have different performance characteristics. e.g. a different optimal v/f curve, architectural changes to make it respond better to clock scaling.
     
    disco_ likes this.
  3. AbsoluteBeginner

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2019
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    978
    But there are 22CU RDNA and 40CU RDNA chips. Scaling is perfectly in line. Look, what Crytek guy said has tons of holes that anyone here can pinpoint. Cerny's comparison between 36 and 48CU chip is on point, but mostly because 48CU chip is clocked well below frequency sweet spot. Frequency won't scale indefinitely, but his comparison was used as PR bullet point vs competition that has higher number.

    If people expect raw power and BW won't matter, on same arch, because API and tools will give more bang for buck, then you only have to look into XBX and Pro to see its probably gibberish. No, MS wont leave 20% performance on table and underutilized GPU duo to shite API. Hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen.
     
    AzBat, KirkSi and PSman1700 like this.
  4. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,477
    Likes Received:
    10,164
    Location:
    The North
    Agreed; but MS should have come to similar conclusions as they have the same chip. They would have done a fair bit of testing as well and they went with a different CU count. It’s clear that XSX is a complete departure from their older technologies and BC is not a factor for them. While it’s clear there are some things that Sony had to concede on to support BC just looking at the BC modes.
     
    AzBat and PSman1700 like this.
  5. snc

    snc
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    97
    22cu and 40 cu are both small, as I said, there is no big navi gpu yet (and we remember how problematic big chips was for vega arch, navi for sure is better in this aspect but we don't now how much better)
     
  6. AbsoluteBeginner

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2019
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    978
    And you speculate it will change with RDNA2 as well. It might, but until now RDNA1 scaling points to worse scaling with frequency then with CU numbers. It might scale better, worse or similar, but difference won't be 20%. His entire point is :

    XSX GPU will run lower then TF (quite possible), PS5 will run above its theoretical TF (actually physically impossible). Him comparing it to PS3 and 360 gen has absolutely 0 relevance, these where completely different consoles with chips made by different vendors and different memory arrangements. PS5 and XSX are quite simply closer to one another in architecture then Pro and XBX.
     
    AzBat and PSman1700 like this.
  7. AbsoluteBeginner

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2019
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    978
    Vega was very much front end limited, it tilted already heavy compute bias even more on bigger chips.

    Nvidia cards are scaling very nicely with even higher CU count then XSX, even though they are PC parts and not specifically designed around their own low level API. I have 0% doubt that MS will saturate 52CU chip and won't leave 20% performance on table.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  8. snc

    snc
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    97
    yep, but amd is not nvidia and we have to wait for big navi to know if they improved in this area
     
  9. AbsoluteBeginner

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2019
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    978
    If "Nvidia killer" does not scale over 40CUs, then it will not be able to beat mid range Nvidia's next year. They wont be putting 500mm2 chips out that cannot scale over 40CU.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  10. pTmdfx

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    177
    Two points:

    1. It is AMD who made claims about pushing clocks upwards and more logic/physical optimisation. Logically speaking, both would lead to changes in performance characteristics, regardless of being good or bad.

    2. I am merely commenting on, given (1), that how performance responds to frequency scaling may not translate between RDNA 1 and RDNA 2.

    So please consider not putting words in other's mouth to get your points across. I never disputed that the SoC of Xbox Series X would have a higher GPU performance in the first place. It does have more compute power after all. :-?
     
    disco_ likes this.
  11. AbsoluteBeginner

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2019
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    978
    Yes, but pushing clocks higher has another benefit - less $ per mm2, therefore even if net gain for freq scaling would be minimally worse, it would likely be big net benefit for AMD (or Sony/MS).

    I am doing this only because you went with comparison of completely different chips, Vega 19' and 20', and building block for XSX and PS5 is same.
     
    disco_ and PSman1700 like this.
  12. Jay

    Jay
    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Cerny's example was compering 10TF to 10TF and different way to get to it.
    Not 10TF is better than 12TF.
    Its from their benchmarks.

    Same way MS said that clocking higher was better than enabling the disabled cu's on XO.

    But MS could easily come out and say based on their benchmarks and what devs want to do in the future (e.g. more compute/RT) having more raw TF regardless how you get it is what is important. As long as the front end is fast enough and bandwidth is adequate.

    Neither company would be wrong, just remember its from their perspective.
     
  13. snc

    snc
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    97
    there is difference between scale and scale 1 to 1 ;)
     
  14. AbsoluteBeginner

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2019
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    978
    That is true. Problem is, we know Sony was likely limited by BC when designing the chip and MS wasnt. So for performance targets, they likely went with compromises either way. Will frequency scale 1:1 over 2.2GHz, will it scale better then additional CUs, or worse, we don't know. What we do know, its not going to scale good enough to overturn 2TF and BW advantage XSX has.

    Its easy to say narrow and fast is better when you are Cerny, but that was choice they made duo to other requirements. MS went with 8GB of DDR3 and tried to explain eSRAM and higher clocks, but in vain.
     
    egoless and PSman1700 like this.
  15. snc

    snc
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    97
    overturn not but the difference can be even smaller than already small ~20%
     
  16. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,525
    Likes Received:
    15,978
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    I apologise if I interpreted that wrong. I assumed you were making an argument in support of PS5's greater speed, on account of you not actually posting any actual argument and leaving it to me to flippin' guess what point you were trying to make, like half the other lazy-arse posters in this thread posting one line facts.
     
    tinokun, BRiT and AzBat like this.
  17. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,477
    Likes Received:
    10,164
    Location:
    The North
    i still don't understand what he wrote. We have official numbers on PS5 random read for their SSD?
     
    BRiT likes this.
  18. see colon

    see colon All Ham & No Potatos
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    473
    Isn't this impossible, though? I mean, I know we have a 22GB/s theoretical, best case with compression max, but this would be writing 13 and reading 13, giving a total of 26 in less than a second? Hasn't there been confirmed no compressor, only a decompressor? That would mean it would take more than 2 seconds to write whats in memory to the SSD at 5.5GB/s.
    To be fair, we've only seen this in practice on Xbox One games played on Series X, and they were running the One X code path, so we can assume they use 10GB or less RAM, so Series X is writing max 10GB and reading max 10GB in the 6-8 seconds they've shown in the demos. 3.3GB/s total if my math is right there, though it's possible not all games have memory fully saturated.

    Recent releases with terrible Xbox One/S performance would confirm this, anecdotally.

    For starters I would need to see the PS5 drive in action. We've seen Series X running Xbox one games, and have seen loading times, quick resume etc. How can anyone compare a demonstrated system component based on existing, previously benchmarked technology with what is at this moment technology not existing in a shipping product.

    Doom 64 runs at 1440p on Xbox One S, only 1080p on PS4. One S confirmed more powerful because higher clockspeed :p.
     
    egoless, tinokun, disco_ and 2 others like this.
  19. Jay

    Jay
    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Or he realised the auto translate made half of it make little sense.
     
    Silenti, Scott_Arm and PSman1700 like this.
  20. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,477
    Likes Received:
    10,164
    Location:
    The North
    or he's speaking his own opinions and bias but it's coming across as him speaking on behalf the company. And his company shut it down. It didn't come across as a standard developer interview, he said some very tasteless things that can't be proven. I believe he ended with that no one could optimize XSX greater than PS5. I suspect this statement will be proven wrong from launch.

    regardless, developers can be biased as well. And neutral devs that do provide information can also be tossed out as being biased by fans.
     
    #780 iroboto, Apr 6, 2020
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2020
    Silenti, Arwin, AzBat and 4 others like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...