PlayStation 4 (codename Orbis) technical hardware investigation (news and rumours)

[3dilettante]

That's the scale I'd like to see. I guess there's a curve of speed/temp/reliability and someone's picked...5% failure in 3 years, say, and 53 MHz would push that up to...5.5% (?)

That would mean a less than 10% increase in clock lead to a 10% increase in failure rates.
The big component for device failure past manufacturing failure is some kind of degradation that has some relation to heat. Electromigration, mechanical failure, chemical degradation, degradation of SRAM, and the like all have a temperature component. The clock speed itself might have a minor contribution to some forms of transistor degradation, but most of the big ones are chemical or physical processes that accellerate with temps, current, and voltage bumps.

Since this is likely a bump that tries to stick within the same temp and a voltage bump would likely prevent that, we've clamped down both thermal and voltage factors that dominate.

What sort of power increase are we talking about here? It'll be more than a linear relationship to the clockspeed increase, so a 7% increase in clock will result in, say, 10% increase in heat. Is there enough AMD information out there to identify a realistic heat increase?

Within a voltage step, the trend is linear. At steps this tiny, we can probably assume linear even without that relationship.

 

[Rangers]

Given the recent 53 MHz upclock for XB1's GPU, is the same on the cards for PS4, or if not, why not?

Well, a reason that could jump out is "the PS4 case is a lot smaller". Thus they have to play it safer with heat etc.

This is conventional wisdom, anyway.

Another thing to consider is that unlike MS they have released the FLOPS spec months ago. Which doesn't mean they cant change it, but is something to consider.

My personal theory is that MS waited until PS4 passed FCC to talk about their little upclock, to avoid any one-upmanship. I think once a SKU passes FCC, it's clocks, whatever they are, are locked. Any changes would need to be recertified (which might be a lengthy process?).

That's just my theory. I cant even state as fact that FCC cert means no clock changes. I dont really know.

The fact is we dont really have any updates about the PS4 clocks. They are kinda in the dark, but we have to assume 800 until we hear different.

On a more practical note, at over 1.8 TF I would doubt Sony is all that concerned about it. With XBO either at 800 or 853, they have a hefty FLOP edge either way.

 

[Lycan]

Well, a reason that could jump out is "the PS4 case is a lot smaller". Thus they have to play it safer with heat etc.

This is conventional wisdom, anyway.

Another thing to consider is that unlike MS they have released the FLOPS spec months ago. Which doesn't mean they cant change it, but is something to consider.

My personal theory is that MS waited until PS4 passed FCC to talk about their little upclock, to avoid any one-upmanship. I think once a SKU passes FCC, it's clocks, whatever they are, are locked. Any changes would need to be recertified (which might be a lengthy process?).

That's just my theory. I cant even state as fact that FCC cert means no clock changes. I dont really know.

The fact is we dont really have any updates about the PS4 clocks. They are kinda in the dark, but we have to assume 800 until we hear different.

On a more practical note, at over 1.8 TF I would doubt Sony is all that concerned about it. With XBO either at 800 or 853, they have a hefty FLOP edge either way.

Your last sentence is the very reason why your concocted theory regarding the timing of the info doesn't make any sense at all... :smile:

 

[Brad Grenz]

I doubt heat would be a serious concern for the PS4. It would only take a 35Mhz increase to nullify the Xbox One's gains, and a 53Mhz bump would leave the gap bigger than it was before! But it's probably just not worth caring about since the PS4 has such a large advantage to begin with.

 

[Rangers]

I doubt heat would be a serious concern for the PS4. It would only take a 35Mhz increase to nullify the Xbox One's gains, and a 53Mhz bump would leave the gap bigger than it was before! But it's probably just not worth caring about since the PS4 has such a large advantage to begin with.

Dont worry, it's apparently completely impossible anyway.

 

[Solarus]

never say never should be a rule haha. it might be harder for ps4 to get a clock increase because of how small the console is. this generation will be interesting now, ps4 might have a FLOP advantage but they can really only use like 12-14cus for rendering the rest will be used for like compute physics or something. we should see parity ebtween the two platforms.

goes to show you that flops aren't the end all be all.

 

[Boxercide]

never say never should be a rule haha. it might be harder for ps4 to get a clock increase because of how small the console is. this generation will be interesting now, ps4 might have a FLOP advantage but they can really only use like 12-14cus for rendering the rest will be used for like compute physics or something. we should see parity ebtween the two platforms.

goes to show you that flops aren't the end all be all.

You seriously need to stop following after astrograd. You're operating off his bad assumptions and blatant fanboy misinformation.

 

[Tap In]

Dont worry, it's apparently completely impossible anyway.

haha. That's awesome. Love the certainty with which certain posters throw their assumptions around

 

[DrJay24]

The FCC filing doesn't go into details on individual clock rates, only the highest frequency is reported, which is based on the RAM.

 

[Solarus]

You seriously need to stop following after astrograd. You're operating off his bad assumptions and blatant fanboy misinformation.

im not, thats from vgleaks. everyone says that he's a fnaboy who spreads misinformation but he's been right about everything so far. that and im assuming ps4 wont get a clock increase because of how small it is that really isn't following anyone i think anyone could come to that sort of viewpoint.

i dont only listen to astro i read some of the stuff here. hes just one of the few people who breaks it down for people like me :smile:

 

[Brad Grenz]

Dont worry, it's apparently completely impossible anyway.

Why are you linking a post of me responding to silly 12GB RAM upgrade conspiracies?

Ekim literally replies to agree it's probably just clock speeds in question.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

never say never should be a rule haha. it might be harder for ps4 to get a clock increase because of how small the console is. this generation will be interesting now, ps4 might have a FLOP advantage but they can really only use like 12-14cus for rendering the rest will be used for like compute physics or something. we should see parity ebtween the two platforms.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

"There are many, many ways to control how the resources within the GPU are allocated between graphics and compute. Of course, what you can do, and what most launch titles will do, is allocate all of the resources to graphics. And that’s perfectly fine, that's great. It's just that the vision is that by the middle of the console lifecycle, that there's a bit more going on with compute."

All of the GPU resources can be used for graphics and he expects this to be the case for most launch titles.

 

[pjbliverpool]

this generation will be interesting now, ps4 might have a FLOP advantage but they can really only use like 12-14cus for rendering

This is complete nonsense. Please stop spreading it as fact.

 

[Solarus]

This is wrong, wrong, wrong.


All of the GPU resources can be used for graphics and he expects this to be the case for most launch titles.

This is complete nonsense. Please stop spreading it as fact.

right but isn't there a diminishing return past 14cus? and then people are suggesting that 2cus are reserved for the os thats what i mean sorry for not being clear.

 

[Gipsel]

right but isn't there a diminishing return past 14cus?

No. It depends very much on the specific task you look at where diminishing returns start to play a role (and devs can shift that by using other algorithms/more expensive shaders). It could be that already two CUs are enough for one task and another one could take advantage of hundreds of CUs. It's simply wrong to make a general statement that diminishing returns set in at x CUs.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

My personal theory is that MS waited until PS4 passed FCC to talk about their little upclock, to avoid any one-upmanship. I think once a SKU passes FCC, it's clocks, whatever they are, are locked. Any changes would need to be recertified (which might be a lengthy process?).

That's just my theory. I cant even state as fact that FCC cert means no clock changes. I dont really know.
.

PSP says hi.

http://www.dailytech.com/PSP+35+Firmware+Unlocks+Higher+333MHz+Clockspeed/article7796.htm

 

[eastmen]

PSP says hi.

http://www.dailytech.com/PSP+35+Firmware+Unlocks+Higher+333MHz+Clockspeed/article7796.htm

This was known pre launch of the system though. Its not something that was discovered after launch.

 

[bkilian]

right but isn't there a diminishing return past 14cus? and then people are suggesting that 2cus are reserved for the os thats what i mean sorry for not being clear.

Even if there were diminishing returns, and even if they reserved 2 CUs for the OS, why couldn't the 2 CUs come from the 4 that devs would be using for compute?

I'm not convinced of this 14 CU crap, if it were true, why do all the high end PC GPUs have significantly more, in the range of double in some cases?

 

[expletive]

Even if there were diminishing returns, and even if they reserved 2 CUs for the OS, why couldn't the 2 CUs come from the 4 that devs would be using for compute?

I'm not convinced of this 14 CU crap, if it were true, why do all the high end PC GPUs have significantly more, in the range of double in some cases?

My thought is that in the PC world, resolution and framerate are infinite variables. Also, consumers of these cards are concerned about performance relative to other cards.

A graphics subsystem in a console that can get 100fps at 1080p is a waste, but in the PC arena its not because you can run at a higher resolution, turn up obscene AA, or at least be future proofed longer.

In this console gen we are capped at 1080p/60 and I believe thats why people are saying above 14 you're diminishing your returns. There'd be no point in buying a GTX 780 if you were only ever going to run at 1080p with 4x AA would there?

 

[Boxercide]

My thought is that in the PC world, resolution and framerate are infinite variables. Also, consumers of these cards are concerned about performance relative to other cards.

A graphics subsystem in a console that can get 100fps at 1080p is a waste, but in the PC arena its not because you can run at a higher resolution, turn up obscene AA, or at least be future proofed longer.

In this console gen we are capped at 1080p/60 and I believe thats why people are saying above 14 you're diminishing your returns. There'd be no point in buying a GTX 780 if you were only ever going to run at 1080p with 4x AA would there?

You do understand that more powerful cards allow you to do more? It seems you're a bit confused on this point.

If you could do 100 fps, then turn some of the effects up to 11. Prettier pixels. GPGPU. better PhysX. You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.

The only people saying diminishing returns have an agenda.