Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [pre E3 2019]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 5 bytes non sequitur
- Status
I think foveated tendering uses variable rate shading. This is also something the Switch already makes use of, IIRC. I think I read somewhere that Navi may support it, as AMD filled a patent on it.
https://www.wired.com/story/exclusive-sony-next-gen-console/
"What took 15 seconds now takes less than one: 0.8 seconds, to be exact.
That’s just one consequence of an SSD"
I already quoted that part. And once again... Those are not Cerny's words. That is only showing fast-travel once the game was loaded and not new game boot-up.
If you don't believe the reporter said PS5 devkit has SSD, how do you believe other info like 7nm navi or 8-core CPU which are said by the reporter?
Lets try to put some numbers around things to try to see what's reasonable and what isnt to baseline expectations ...
What's Known
Time used: 0.8 seconds
What's Unknown
Amount of data read
Read speed of storage
What's reasonable ranges?
Amount of data read is under less than console memory, but unknown max memory size for PS5.
Can we assume data read was less than PS4 game memory of 5GB?
PCIExpress 4.0, 1x Lane bandwidth 1 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 1.5752 GB
PCIExpress 4.0, 2x Lane bandwidth 2 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 3.1504 GB
PCIExpress 4.0, 4x Lane bandwidth 4 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 6.3008 GB
PCIExpress 4.0, 8x Lane bandwidth 8 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 12.6016 GB
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVME, sequential read 3500 MB/s * 0.8 seconds = 2800 MB
If we assume memory read is less than PS4 game memory, then it could be possible all 5GB of new fast-travel destination was already loaded into PS5 game memory that should definitely be more than 12GB. Now I'm not saying that is the case, but it is possible.
To be clear, I truly want nextgen consoles to have amazing storage subsystems and memory subsystems. I'm just playing devil's advocate and assuming the worst to not be disappointed.
What's Known
Time used: 0.8 seconds
What's Unknown
Amount of data read
Read speed of storage
What's reasonable ranges?
Amount of data read is under less than console memory, but unknown max memory size for PS5.
Can we assume data read was less than PS4 game memory of 5GB?
PCIExpress 4.0, 1x Lane bandwidth 1 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 1.5752 GB
PCIExpress 4.0, 2x Lane bandwidth 2 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 3.1504 GB
PCIExpress 4.0, 4x Lane bandwidth 4 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 6.3008 GB
PCIExpress 4.0, 8x Lane bandwidth 8 * 1.969 GB/s * 0.8 seconds = 12.6016 GB
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVME, sequential read 3500 MB/s * 0.8 seconds = 2800 MB
If we assume memory read is less than PS4 game memory, then it could be possible all 5GB of new fast-travel destination was already loaded into PS5 game memory that should definitely be more than 12GB. Now I'm not saying that is the case, but it is possible.
To be clear, I truly want nextgen consoles to have amazing storage subsystems and memory subsystems. I'm just playing devil's advocate and assuming the worst to not be disappointed.
They were explicitly stated that the PS5 had these. Nowhere does it say, "PS5 has an SSD." Everyone thinks it does when they read it, but when you really look at it, it doesn't and only implies heavily. But what's shown could be achieved by a cache. Might be a 64 GB flash cache between HDD and RAM. Might be a 1 TB SSD. Might be a 256 GB SSD and a large HDD. We don't know.
Cerny said he had an SSD in his laptop and Excel takes 15 seconds to load. Then we have a line saying, "What’s built into Sony’s next-gen console is something a little more specialized." So it's more specialised than an SSD. Does that make it a different type of SSD, or a different storage solution?
There's no attempt to be deceitful on the part of the article, and all the info in it is accurate, but the info is buried under subjective prose. That's the nature of non-technical writing, and because of that, it's not possible to be sure of the specifics. We cannot say categorically that PS5 has any form of hardware raytracing acceleration even though it was hinted at because it wasn't explicitly stated (unlike the CPU being Zen 2), and we cannot say categorically that PS5 has an SSD even though it was hinted at.
There's a qualitative difference between the types of info present. Us 'doubters' are just pointing that out, not to blow cold on anything, but to keep the technical, fact-based discussion technical. If it's later shown PS5 has HWRT and a special SSD, great - changes nothing. But limiting discussion now to a theory that assumes these when it later proves they're not in just means discussion now is focussed in the wrong direction. We can confidently accept it's x64 and not ARM, at least.
A caching solution would be fine.
It'd work just as well with external HDD storage (like an enormous number of people already use and will want to continue using), and when GB/$$ is in favour of SSD you can just go completely with SSD inside the console.
It's a solution that would work in the present and be ready for the future.
It'd work just as well with external HDD storage (like an enormous number of people already use and will want to continue using), and when GB/$$ is in favour of SSD you can just go completely with SSD inside the console.
It's a solution that would work in the present and be ready for the future.
I should have included numbers from the PS4 using mechanical drive, that would have given the more limiting range of how much was loaded. I dont recall the bus speed limit of the PS4 IO subsystem but it seemed to be around the physical limits of mechanical hard drives, so lets use some ranges.
What is Known
Time taken for PS4 Fast Travel: 15 seconds
What is Reasonable Ranges?
Reasonable speed of mechanical drive from 2013: 100 MB/s
Upper end of Mechanical drives from 2013: 150 MB/s
Extreme end of Mechanical drives even now: 200 MB/s
100 MB/s * 15 seconds = 1500 MB
150 MB/s * 15 seconds = 2250 MB
200 MB/s * 15 seconds = 3000 MB
Now the speed of a NVME:
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVME, sequential read 3500 MB/s * 0.8 seconds = 2800 MB
The 2250 MB read is right around the speed of what an NVME could read in 0.8 seconds, assuming sequential read burst speed since thats their fastest.
I think that would reasonably fit into ram cache on even the current gen One X, and more than reasonable to fit into ram cache on nextgen PS5 or Xbox Next.
What is Known
Time taken for PS4 Fast Travel: 15 seconds
What is Reasonable Ranges?
Reasonable speed of mechanical drive from 2013: 100 MB/s
Upper end of Mechanical drives from 2013: 150 MB/s
Extreme end of Mechanical drives even now: 200 MB/s
100 MB/s * 15 seconds = 1500 MB
150 MB/s * 15 seconds = 2250 MB
200 MB/s * 15 seconds = 3000 MB
Now the speed of a NVME:
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVME, sequential read 3500 MB/s * 0.8 seconds = 2800 MB
The 2250 MB read is right around the speed of what an NVME could read in 0.8 seconds, assuming sequential read burst speed since thats their fastest.
I think that would reasonably fit into ram cache on even the current gen One X, and more than reasonable to fit into ram cache on nextgen PS5 or Xbox Next.
For these calculations Brit, doesn't the CPU have a big factor to play here as well?
The massive jump in CPU performance has a big factor here too.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This is the problem assuming things, only Sony know. If the data is packed in a way not directly supported by any of the PS4 hardware then the CPU is unpacking data before it is usable by other CPU tasks (world generation) or the GPU for rendering. If that's not the case then it's largely an I/O issue and the CPU is irrelevant.
As had been demonstrated through PS4's eerily fast install process, Sony have some great tech for games being quickly playable but to what extent this tech leveraged in fully installed games themselves is not known.
Oh it absolutely does, but for analyzing absolute upper bounds to range out how much data could possibly be read we can ignore CPU. Naturally the actual amount of data read would be below these numbers because not 100% of the 15 seconds or 0.8 seconds was spent reading.
But overall, it looks like a maximum of 2250 MB to 3000 MB was read during this test which is around the current sequential read limits of NVME devices and under the theoretical max bus speed of 4 lane PCIExpress 4.0 subsystem.
Not a bad bounding box given the extreme lack of details actually presented.
But overall, it looks like a maximum of 2250 MB to 3000 MB was read during this test which is around the current sequential read limits of NVME devices and under the theoretical max bus speed of 4 lane PCIExpress 4.0 subsystem.
Not a bad bounding box given the extreme lack of details actually presented.
anexanhume
Veteran
I try not to crosspost between forums, but I felt this was important to share. This is regarding the reddit rumor saying PS5 will have HBM2.
Another interesting point to make regarding this rumor is that TSMC actually consulted with Sony (among others) during the development of InFO_MS, which would make Sony familiar with it and probably in the back of their mind when developing consoles. I'd also like to point out that Sony is not a stranger to being inventive with memory. The Vita had a special packaging method in use to get very high bandwidth to the Vita's GPU.
Also, let's assume for a second there was a typo in the original rumor, because it doesn't quite make sense as it is. It says:
Which doesn't make sense. Typically when we talk about GPUs, we talk about GB/s per GF/TF, not the other way around. However, 40GB/s per GF would be a stupidly low number, so let's now assume they meant TF. We need a second part of the comment for future information
1.6Gbps per second would result in 409.6GB/s in a 2-stack config. 1.7Gbps bumps it to 435.2GB/s, which is competitive with 256-bit GDDR6 solutions. If we're now assuming the 40-50 GB/s per TF is valid, this gives us a range of 8.7TF to 10.875TF for PS5.
Finally, regarding my skepticism around HBM2 supply, some key things have happened since Samsung's comments about low capacity. SK Hynix and Micron have both entered the market in full force (after the latter abandoned HMC development). And the crypto market crashed. With DRAM and NAND markets easing up, that capacity has to shift somewhere.
Regarding HBM pricing, it's hard to know much it has eased over the past few years (we do have some Vega VII rumored costs for reference), but I think it may be possible to get it down to less than 50% more than GDDR6 per GB, perhaps even just 35% to 40% higher. When you consider that they just need 8GB instead of 16GB of GDDR6, their solution is extremely cost competitive. At that point, it becomes a lot more attractive. HBM is also done on contract pricing (i.e. not floating with market costs), so a big order from Sony locks that factor in and sets up a mutually beneficial relationship with that partner to help them build up their own capacity.
The only rumor around this giving me pause is the digitimes rumor that stated ASE will do the packaging. Other than that, a lot of this rumor makes sense the more I dig into it.
Also, I imagine if that PS4 rev mentioned is coming, it's definitely this Fall. Since it's a console rev, it may not get cracked open to confirm the 7nm EUV from Samsung part, but the timing makes so much sense with MS pushing costs down with the SAD model and the rumored E-revision of the device internals.
Finally, here's the rumor in its entirety for posterity:
Another interesting point to make regarding this rumor is that TSMC actually consulted with Sony (among others) during the development of InFO_MS, which would make Sony familiar with it and probably in the back of their mind when developing consoles. I'd also like to point out that Sony is not a stranger to being inventive with memory. The Vita had a special packaging method in use to get very high bandwidth to the Vita's GPU.
Also, let's assume for a second there was a typo in the original rumor, because it doesn't quite make sense as it is. It says:
Which doesn't make sense. Typically when we talk about GPUs, we talk about GB/s per GF/TF, not the other way around. However, 40GB/s per GF would be a stupidly low number, so let's now assume they meant TF. We need a second part of the comment for future information
1.6Gbps per second would result in 409.6GB/s in a 2-stack config. 1.7Gbps bumps it to 435.2GB/s, which is competitive with 256-bit GDDR6 solutions. If we're now assuming the 40-50 GB/s per TF is valid, this gives us a range of 8.7TF to 10.875TF for PS5.
Finally, regarding my skepticism around HBM2 supply, some key things have happened since Samsung's comments about low capacity. SK Hynix and Micron have both entered the market in full force (after the latter abandoned HMC development). And the crypto market crashed. With DRAM and NAND markets easing up, that capacity has to shift somewhere.
Regarding HBM pricing, it's hard to know much it has eased over the past few years (we do have some Vega VII rumored costs for reference), but I think it may be possible to get it down to less than 50% more than GDDR6 per GB, perhaps even just 35% to 40% higher. When you consider that they just need 8GB instead of 16GB of GDDR6, their solution is extremely cost competitive. At that point, it becomes a lot more attractive. HBM is also done on contract pricing (i.e. not floating with market costs), so a big order from Sony locks that factor in and sets up a mutually beneficial relationship with that partner to help them build up their own capacity.
The only rumor around this giving me pause is the digitimes rumor that stated ASE will do the packaging. Other than that, a lot of this rumor makes sense the more I dig into it.
Also, I imagine if that PS4 rev mentioned is coming, it's definitely this Fall. Since it's a console rev, it may not get cracked open to confirm the 7nm EUV from Samsung part, but the timing makes so much sense with MS pushing costs down with the SAD model and the rumored E-revision of the device internals.
Finally, here's the rumor in its entirety for posterity:
Cerny also didn’t mention AF. So obviously we’ll be getting RT but still stuck with trilinear filtering if we’re lucky!
#fakenews
#fakenews
D
Deleted member 91098
Guest
Why do you come to that conclusion? From what I see they push towards more cores since Bulldozer or at least since Zen. With Ryzen they were the first to introduce 6 and 8 cores to a mainstream socket while Intel kept the mainstream to 4 cores since the Core 2 Quad (and only increased the count after AMD returned to relevance). Since AMDs multithreading performance is better than Intel while being slightly worse (at the same clock, not to mention that Intel can also clock higher) in single threaded workloads, they profit more from a push towards more cores than Intel.
What's up with their memory allocation slide at 0:31? Is the 18 GB they show a typo? 16 GB would make more sense unless they know something (like 24 GB in total but 6 GB reserved for OS).
Thanks for bringing this up. I hope it's okay to piggyback on this and to point to the post from @DmitryKo again, since it was not only buried under comments when I posted it on reddit, but thanks to my luck it was buried here as well.
So, my questions is: if we replace HBM3 with HBM2 and DDR5 with DDR4 from the example of @DmitryKo, gives the inclusion of such a (probably) ~3 GB/s. (or faster) fast NAND storage the rumor more credibility?
Another question: would such a setup affect GPU decompression which was mentioned multiple times over the last months?
435.2 GB/s x 40 GFLOPs per GB/sec = 17.41 Tflops
435.2 GB/s x 50 GFLOPs per GB/sec = 21.76 Tflops
He may mean that PS5 RAM bandwidth can meet the requirement of a 17.41~21.76 Tflops GPU.
It's not that surprising since RTX 2080 only has 448GB/s bandwidth.
- Status
Similar threads
