General Next Generation Rumors and Discussions [Post GDC 2020]

[iroboto]

And that transition will be a lot slower on the SeriesX, since Microsoft is mandating that all new 1st party titles for the SeriesX must also be developed for every device down to the XBOne, for at least two years. That gives a lot less motivation for current XBox gamers to upgrade, meaning they'll be slower to upgrade.

So if every developer were to follow your logic (they won't), no one would even bother to implement raytracing. The overwhelming majority of console + PC gamers don't own raytracing capable hardware either.

This is a bit off, the first 2 years doesn't necessarily mean 24 months since release. It really just means ending 2021 at most. You can probably look at it as a year and a bit.

Secondly, it's only first party titles that have this mandate. A lot of people will still want to see next gen graphics coming from 1st and 3rd party developers. 1st party studios will certainly have the funding to do both render paths.
Thirdly, most titles in general in the first year are often back ported to the previous generation anyway since it takes a while to ramp up populations.

 

[BRiT]

I'm really itching to find out details on the Cooling and the Power Supply / Power Usage of the PS5.

 

[Silenti]

Cerny mentioned a teardown in the presentation...... still waiting.......

 

[Rangers]

I'm really itching to find out details on the Cooling and the Power Supply / Power Usage of the PS5.

I wonder how much costs savings on a smaller SOC they gave back here...

 

[Rangers]

Neither company fucked up on their next-gen console hardware and marketing schemes so far (IMO). Meaning the chances for migrating from Xbox to Playstation and vice-versa are slim.

That said, Sony has 110 million users that may upgrade, Microsoft has 50 million. Sony also has a higher attachment rate IIRC (their customers buy more games).

Every generation is a fresh start, Ps3/360 gen should have proved that. Went from 150-25 PS2-Xbox to basically 90-90 360-PS3.

Of course, Sony has large inbuilt advantages, which is why they pulled a tie out of a possibly disastrous PS3.

For this gen, I need to see more about pricing and Lockhart to predict. Lockhart is such a possible wild card in so many ways, it's almost impossible for me to predict. I cant even say if it's likely to be a net good or bad thing! (if it even comes to fruition).

XSX vs PS5 as it stands though I think MS has an clear early edge.I doubt the price delta will be more than $50, and I think it could be zero.

 

[BRiT]

Cerny mentioned a teardown in the presentation...... still waiting.......

Oh, that wasn't a comment about the cardboard cutout audience members after the presentation?

 

[Nesh]

The XBOX Series X mentions 10GB at 560GB/s, 6GB at 336GB/s for RAM. How does this work?

 

[Betanumerical]

The XBOX Series X mentions 10GB at 560GB/s, 6GB at 336GB/s for RAM. How does this work?

They had to use mixed density modules to get 16GB on a 320bit bus. To achieve high bandwidth memory technologies strip the request across multiple modules. Because the higher density modules have an address space that does not exist on the lower density modules you cannot strip them except with each other. So you have a single unified address space that has two speed 'pools' depending on what chips and address space you are accessing.

You have

1 - 10GB - 320bits @ 560GB/s (accessing all banks)
2 - 6GB - 192bits @ 336GB/s (accessing only the higher memory space of the higher density banks)

 

[Nesh]

They had to use mixed density modules to get 16GB on a 320bit bus. To achieve high bandwidth memory technologies strip the request across multiple modules. Because the higher density modules have an address space that does not exist on the lower density modules you cannot strip them except with each other. So you have a single unified address space that has two speed 'pools' depending on what chips and address space you are accessing.

You have

1 - 10GB - 320bits @ 560GB/s (accessing all banks)
2 - 6GB - 192bits @ 336GB/s (accessing only the higher density banks)

Thats all chinese to me
In terms of game performance how does this work? If a game requires more than 10 GBs what happens there?

 

[Betanumerical]

Thats all chinese to me
In terms of game performance how does this work? If a game requires more than 10 GBs what happens there?

Until the games actually start needing more then 10GB for higher performance memory its meaning is pretty minimal. Once you need more then 10GB you'll just have to use the slower ram.

 

[JoeJ]

In terms of game performance how does this work? If a game requires more than 10 GBs what happens there?

I guess you end up putting GPU stuff on fast pool, and CPU stuff (animation, physics sim) on the slower pool. (Assuming OS does not already eat all the slow pool for precious Cortana, buddy list and gameplay streaming :| )

 

[Picao84]

Potentially higher.... potentially lower clocks.

I suspect they will keep clocks higher (over 2ghz) most of the time, but there's a reason they chose a base clock lower than the xsx and I doubt it's just for furmark.

Where is the information about the base clock? I've only seen the max 2.23Ghz..

 

[Arwin]

They had to use mixed density modules to get 16GB on a 320bit bus. To achieve high bandwidth memory technologies strip the request across multiple modules. Because the higher density modules have an address space that does not exist on the lower density modules you cannot strip them except with each other. So you have a single unified address space that has two speed 'pools' depending on what chips and address space you are accessing.

You have

1 - 10GB - 320bits @ 560GB/s (accessing all banks)
2 - 6GB - 192bits @ 336GB/s (accessing only the higher memory space of the higher density banks)

It averages to 476GB/s in total .... whatever that means

 

[Nesh]

Until the games actually start needing more then 10GB for higher performance memory its meaning is pretty minimal. Once you need more then 10GB you'll just have to use the slower ram.

I guess you end up putting GPU stuff on fast pool, and CPU stuff (animation, physics sim) on the slower pool. (Assuming OS does not already eat all the slow pool for precious Cortana, buddy list and gameplay streaming :| )

hmm...probably thats another optimization advantage on behalf of MS.
PS5's real bandwidth will be less as it is accessed by CPU and GPU in one single pool, pretty much like the PS4.
In the case of MS, to me it sounds like they can maintain full bandwidth for the GPU tasks and the lesser bandwidth for the CPU tasks through separate pools. Which means 560GBs might be a stable for GPU at all times (for GPU related tasks) whereas the PS5 will have less bandwidth than 448GBs of bandwidth at all times for both GPU and CPU. Unsure if the SSD speeds feeding fully the RAM very fast provides some advantage that compensates for it.

 

[Betanumerical]

hmm...probably thats another optimization advantage on behalf of MS.
PS5's real bandwidth will be less as it is accessed by CPU and GPU in one single pool, pretty much like the PS4.
In the case of MS, to me it sounds like they can maintain full bandwidth for the GPU tasks and the lesser bandwidth for the CPU tasks through separate pools. Which means 560GBs might be a stable for GPU at all times (for GPU related tasks) whereas the PS5 will have less bandwidth than 448GBs of bandwidth at all times. Unsure if the SSD speeds feeding fully the RAM very fast provides some advantage that compensates for it.

They aren't seperate pools, its the same hardware and bus thats shared between the two its just slower if you access part of it so the CPU accessing memory is likely to be slower than on the PS5 and have a larger impact on bandwidth overall as well. This isn't a optimisation this is a trade off to save on having to spend on 20GB of GDDR6.

 

[Nesh]

They aren't seperate pools, its the same hardware and bus thats shared between the two its just slower if you access part of it so the CPU accessing memory is likely to be slower the PS5 and have a larger impact on over bandwidth as well. This isn't a optimisation this is a trade off to save on having to spend on 20GB of GDDR6.

oh ok thanks for the heads up

 

[RobertR1]

Having slept on it I’m confused by the lack of any demos. If you’re releasing this year how are you not able to show anything especially in the areas you’re touting innovation like load speeds?

BC overall seems to be a large struggle for them each generation. I’m not a programmer by any means but it seems like software engineering decisions MS made in the past give them little to no trouble with BC and the fact that their BC titles are boosted with new features out of the box makes Sony look many steps behind in that area.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's actually possible that xsx ssd cartridges could end up cheaper or same ball park as ps5 nvme drives.

It's quite possible that Microsoft and Sony's external solid state solutions are effectively the same, it's just Sony's emphasis on "standard" and Microsoft made it clear theirs was "propriety" makes Sony's solution sound better. Re-watching the segment where Mark Cerny talks about SSD expansion, he makes it clear that although the interface of NVMe is standard the form factor size is not, i.e. the actual shape of the complete product varies because some NVMe units have coolers or even fans on.

I think what's possibly happened here is that both manufacturers have realised their SSD capacity will need expanding in the coming years (and capacities will rise and prices drop) and Microsoft went for some kind of formal certification programme for NVMe so it's clear to XSX owners that product Z will work fine whereas Sony is saying you can use "standard device" (even though there is no physical standard) and Sony will tell you which ones work. Microsoft's approach seems simpler, but Sony's approach may result in cheaper options.

this starts sounding more and more like Cell. I mean, only exclusives are going to take advantage of that "super" speed, and for what reason.....

All the fast loading and instant accessibility will make a difference in first party titles, but multi-platforms still have PCs to contend with.

So PC troll peasants, with with their multiple-I/O buses and dual-RAM setups to content with may be looking at a the worst load times, with XSX being being damn snappy and PS5 being almost zero loads. Even if it is just a case of near-zero loads, that's better than that frustrating period where you are starring at the screen waiting for a load while reading helpful tips like "when you health reaches zero, you will die"

I hear PCMR defenders incoming in three.. two.. one..

 

[3dilettante]

Having slept on it I’m confused by the lack of any demos. If you’re releasing this year how are you not able to show anything especially in the areas you’re touting innovation like load speeds?

BC overall seems to be a large struggle for them each generation. I’m not a programmer by any means but it seems like software engineering decisions MS made in the past give them little to no trouble with BC and the fact that their BC titles are boosted with new features out of the box makes Sony look many steps behind in that area.

There are some decisions with regard to low-level access or exotic architectures that can make compatibility harder. Microsoft started with generally PC hardware, moved to a less-standard CPU but DX GPU, then went to PC-based hardware again. Sony has a longer legacy in hardware, and a lot of it is quite alien to the hardware that needs to emulate it now.
Varying levels of abstraction may have hurt peak performance, but gave more convenient places for hardware or software sleight of hand.

All that said, Microsoft put a lot of engineering effort into BC and continues to do so on an ongoing basis. Sony's efforts have often been front-loaded, with an apparent desire to get things done to minimize ongoing investment. That may make more sense with the limited resources and a lesser ability to extend this work into other fields or markets. If it turns out that something needs a lot more of that foundation work and ongoing engineering, and it seems BC at a competitive level might be that, results can be spotty.
Other areas with ongoing effort like online can show similar results, given Sony tapped Azure for at least some of its infrastructural needs.

 

[Nesh]

Having slept on it I’m confused by the lack of any demos. If you’re releasing this year how are you not able to show anything especially in the areas you’re touting innovation like load speeds?

BC overall seems to be a large struggle for them each generation. I’m not a programmer by any means but it seems like software engineering decisions MS made in the past give them little to no trouble with BC and the fact that their BC titles are boosted with new features out of the box makes Sony look many steps behind in that area.

It was a presentation planned for the Game Developers Conference. Developers who have access to the hardware have seen it in practice and others have been updated. Sony is reserving the user experience for a more appropriate presentation than spoil it now within the technical mambo jumbo.