Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

[PSman1700]

I guess now there will be dozens of pages on different forums dedicated to what "supports hardware raytracing natively" means exactly and if raytracing also must mean it's RDNA2?

That's exactly what's happening You think PS5 could be RNDA1, or some hybrid still?

 

[Mskx]

That's exactly what's happening You think PS5 could be RNDA1, or some hybrid still?

I am out of my weight class here TBH but i will say that before Xbox said the Series X was RDNA2 i kind of assumed both next gen consoles would be RDNA 1 with some RDNA2 features, like RT, added on like what they did with RPM on the PS4 Pro.

 

[iroboto]

Natively means in the GPU.

I'm glad that's sorted out. 14+4

 

[iroboto]

"Both are powered by Radeon and both support hardware raytracing natively."

Good quote, a solid 1.9 out of 2 !

 

[Proelite]

Good quote, a solid 1.9 out of 2 !

So you mean Xsx out of 2.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

I guess now there will be dozens of pages on different forums dedicated to what "supports hardware raytracing natively" means exactly and if raytracing also must mean it's RDNA2 or if it could be added to RDNA1...

I guess natively just means in the GPU. But implementations can be different.

 

[mrcorbo]

I guess natively just means in the GPU. But implementations can be different.

How different could they be, though? Seriously. AMD are, by the most obvious parsing of the quote since it is part of a larger statement on AMD's support for raytracing, providing the solution for both. Why would they come up with two different solutions to the same problem?

 

[MrFox]

How different could they be, though? Seriously. AMD are, by the most obvious parsing of the quote since it is part of a larger statement on AMD's support for raytracing, providing the solution for both. Why would they come up with two different solutions to the same problem?

Well it's semi-custom, they might be asking for a variation on different sections, and a few additions, bigger/smaller cache, but there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. We can look at all the other things they were asked for ps4, ps4pro, xb1, xb1x, it was always specific optimizations that were not necessaily helpful or worth it for a PC gpu (more ACEs, esram, even cpu branch prediction biases based on gathering statistics), and even "back port" of feature that are planned for the next gpu (fp16 rpm).

I'm thinking Cerny is a big proponent of fine grain compute, and having more robust priority for audio, so he might ask for latency/priority improvements for audio tasks on the RT section, even if it costs more die space. AMD wouldn't care about that for their PC gpus. It's not necessarily things that AMD didn't think about, it's the details which don't fit their PC gpu business model, but happen to be helpful for the reality of console's fixed hardware and closed platform.

 

[mrcorbo]

Well it's semi-custom, they might be asking for a variation on different sections, and a few additions, bigger/smaller cache, but there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. We can look at all the other things they were asked for ps4, ps4pro, xb1, xb1x, it was always specific optimizations that were not necessaily helpful or worth it for a PC gpu (more ACEs, esram, even cpu branch prediction biases based on gathering statistics), and even "back port" of feature that are planned for the next gpu (fp16 rpm).

I'm thinking Cerny is a big proponent of fine grain compute, and having more robust priority for audio, so he might ask for latency/priority improvements for audio tasks on the RT section, even if it costs more die space. AMD wouldn't care about that for their PC gpus. It's not necessarily things that AMD didn't think about, it's the details which don't fit their PC gpu business model, but happen to be helpful for the reality of console's fixed hardware and closed platform.

Sure. But on a scale of "identical" to "radically different", we're probably going wind up much closer to the "identical" end.

 

[iroboto]

Sure. But on a scale of "identical" to "radically different", we're probably going wind up much closer to the "identical" end.

agreed.
I do think there will be customization, but notably the majority of it being security.

 

[dobwal]

How different could they be, though? Seriously. AMD are, by the most obvious parsing of the quote since it is part of a larger statement on AMD's support for raytracing, providing the solution for both. Why would they come up with two different solutions to the same problem?

Some parts of the overall design may be optional and can be handle by general compute versus specialized hardware.

One company may favor adding more general compute than adopting the specialized but optional RT blocks. Or vice versa. Specialized blocks are fast but limited to specific tasks. General compute may be slower but offer flexibility and the ability to handle a broad range of tasks and workloads.

 

[KeanuReeves]

Like i said, there's a reason sony didnt go for their own solution, if it would have been better for them, and they would have been able to, they would have had their own hardware solution.

We don't know if Sony went with their own solution and had AMD natively support it. You are acting as if it is now set in stone that it is the same solution between Sony and the rest of AMD's RDNA 2 RT solutions.
Time will tell, of course, but it is far from a fact at this point, it isn't even logically the best way to go for Sony.
It is entirely possible that Sony has their own solution that is better, and AMD was then able to natively support that solution.

 

[PSman1700]

You are acting as if it is now set in stone that it is the same solution between Sony and the rest of AMD's RDNA 2 RT solutions.

Oh i had understood PS5 was RDNA2 with RT from AMD, remains to be seen then what arch their on and what RT hardware sony has prepared.

It is entirely possible that Sony has their own solution that is better

It's possible, and if it is, it would be surprising if Sony can match or outperform AMD in any department regarding graphics.

 

[mrcorbo]

We don't know if Sony went with their own solution and had AMD natively support it. You are acting as if it is now set in stone that it is the same solution between Sony and the rest of AMD's RDNA 2 RT solutions.
Time will tell, of course, but it is far from a fact at this point, it isn't even logically the best way to go for Sony.
It is entirely possible that Sony has their own solution that is better, and AMD was then able to natively support that solution.

Why would AMD use PS5 as a supporting example of how AMD are supporting RT alongside RDNA 2 and XBSX if Sony are not using AMD's RT?

And please explain why using AMD's solution is not logically the best way to go.

 

[PSman1700]

And please explain why using AMD's solution is not logically the best way to go.

Sony could have had a better hardware ray tracing solution, which AMD would implement on the RDNA gpu. It is possible but unlikely, as sony never has been better then say Intel, Amd, nvidia etc at producing hardware for gaming related devices.

 

[KeanuReeves]

Why would AMD use PS5 as a supporting example of how AMD are supporting RT alongside RDNA 2 and XBSX if Sony are not using AMD's RT?

And please explain why using AMD's solution is not logically the best way to go.

In the scenario I made I merely suggested that it was a possibility in an attempt to loosen up the assumption that it was 100% set in stone that Sony was going with what AMD had for RT.
Sony has been doing R&D and showing RT demos ever since 2008 days where they would chain together like 3 different PS3's to have a real-time demo running in 2008. Logically speaking, if Sony had engineered a custom RT solution that was better than AMD's, they could go with that.
But I understand that BRiT would like these hypotheticals to leave the thread at this point, so just take it as my attempt to exclaim that AMD's general RDNA 2 RT solution isn't factually what the PS5 will use. It isn't a fact yet at least.

 

[BRiT]

To counterpoint that, Microsoft has also been doing RT R&D since that time and has patents too, so why would they opt for AMD's solution instead? To make it easier for developers and be able to support it on the PC, is that maybe why?

 

[London Geezer]

To counterpoint that, Microsoft has also been doing RT R&D since that time and has patents too, so why would they opt for AMD's solution instead? To make it easier for developers and be able to support it on the PC, is that maybe why?

Can’t be.

 

[upnorthsox]

To counterpoint that, Microsoft has also been doing RT R&D since that time and has patents too, so why would they opt for AMD's solution instead? To make it easier for developers and be able to support it on the PC, is that maybe why?

How is that a counterpoint? MS came up with DXR without AMD's solution. Everything points to AMD being late to the party here, it wouldn't be surprising for no one to be following AMD's lead as they are not leading anything. Why are they using AMD's solution? Cost would be my mostly likely reason. That may be the determinant reason for Sony too, We'll see, maybe as soon as today.

 

[BRiT]

We'll see, maybe as soon as today.

oh you're an optimist.