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

Since you're one of few who knows about this, I have to ask and hope you have a positive answer:

Have you found or know of any sites similar to GrokLaw.net, ones which cover lawsuits with technical impacts?

 

I'm not sure I fully understand how the law works regarding software patents, or patents in general, but I think the way it works is to think of DX like a device that turns water into wine. What happens inside that device, the pixie magic or whatever, is the proprietary thing that could be patented. If elves made a device that took in grapes and used elf magic to produce wine, that's fine because the thing that happens inside the box (the elf magic) is totally different than the pixie magic, even though they produce the same thing.

I think that's how WINE "gets away" with it. Elf magic.

Also, I don't know how DX is licensed. I've never looked into it. But I think that MS has basically just made a closed standard where they control the feature set and pixie magic but anyone can produce the grapes or the bottles that the wine flows into. I'm sure there's some badge certification and driver validation fees they collect, but that's WHQL and marketing stuff. Not sure that they require it for anything else.

 

I used to have another pretty good blog that I followed in parallel with GrokLaw back in 2012, 2014, that dealt mostly with the legal aspects of FOSS software but touched all kinds of software lawsuits (not, not Florian Müller, ew), but I can't for the life of me find it anymore. Either I'm misremembering something or the blog simply vanished from the internet. Wouldn't surprise me if the same thing that made pj go "nope, not doing this anymore" made the guy disappear without a trace.

Other than that, EFF, of course, covers some of it, but just the big stuff (and a lot of other tech things, as well).

 

Sparkman is Scarlett related.

XB1 is the only console with 4 render backends. 1X and PS4 had 8. Pro had 16!

Gen0 is BC for XB1.

 

Mentioned this on Era too, but the inclusion of VRS is significant. Navi is missing it, and AMD declined to comment when it might be included in RDNA. If consoles have both hardware RT and VRS, calling their graphics chips "Navi" is seeming pretty generous at this point. Unless AMD plans to blur the lines of how generations are branded.

 

It always was the base.
Can't really say RDNA 2 with bits taken away.
Can say RDNA + or 1.5 etc though.

Unless it was really based on RDNA 2.

 

Why would it need to be backwards compatible with XB1 instead of just the 1X?

 

For pre-X1X titles. They won't have anything other than an XB1 render path.

 

Well how does X1X perform BC? Does it split to 4RB?

 

Sometimes, but then it still runs faster speeds. It's not as exact of BC Hardware specified as the 4Pro does. I think even in this BC mode it has more CUs than XO or XS., like 20 instead of 14? @TheAlSpark probably still remembers this.

 

Without a patch, XO games just see the 2 shader engines, but it's 10 vs 6 CU per SE + 40% clocks, so it's sitting at 3TF.

 

AMD has always said next gen RDNA for Scarlett. It'll be interesting to finally know what that means.

 

Didn't they just say it was navi based?

With time frames I could see it being based on RDNA 1 or 2, don't think I'd be surprised either way. I would be pleasantly surprised if both consoles didn't have the same base though.
As I think what ever business factors drive the choice would probably be the same for the other company..

 

So here's the setups in comparison XO, XOS, unpatched XOX, patched XOX:

853 MHz * 12 = 1.31 TFlops
914 MHz * 12 = 1.40 TFlops
1,172 MHz * 20 = 3 TFlops
1,172 MGZ * 40 = 6 TFlops

 

Komachi has modified his table. RDNA 1.5 has disappeared. Navi 1X is RDNA 1, Navi 2X is RDNA 2 (with Ray tracing)

 

What's stopping GPUs using RDNA 2 from being called Navi? Some people seem a bit fixated on these unqualified names as meaning something.

 

That's why I said I wouldn't be surprised if it's RDNA 2 based, because all they said is its navi based.
As far as I'm aware the name navi didn't mean RDNA 1. But guess that could change.

But I do think people associate navi with RDNA 1.

 

You have to admit that for a specific implementation of an architecture (Arcturus, GCN 5) getting a unique name but a whole arch rev keeping the former’s name would be a bit odd and feel inconsistent.

 

I believe the quote was

What "custom" means is extremely hard to say.

 

blue nugroho AKA mistercteam posted this oma on twitter


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJX8W5uUUAEqGFl.jpg:large