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

[keenism]

*bad math snip*

One more, the XBOX NEXT: Vgleaks " A SIMD executes a vector instruction on 64 threads at once in lockstep "

4 SIMDs per SC or CU x 64 Threads = 256 Threads
12 SC or CU x 256 Threads = 3072 (Stream Processors) x
800MHz = 2.4TFsp With out the Movie Engines.

*blahblahblah snip*

Alright, this right here...is directly from vgleaks.

Shader cores:
12
Instruction issue rate:
12 SCs * 4 SIMDs * 16 threads/clock = 768 ops/clock
FLOPs:
768 ops/clock * (1 mul + 1 add) * 800 MHz = 1.2 TFLOPS

Now this kind of stuff drives me up the wall, you can't use just one piece of a rumor/leak to make an argument....believe it all or none of it.

edit2: I also find it interesting how your "math proved" GPU's have 1000+ more shader alu's than a 7970 yet are 1.1TFLOPs weaker? Should give you a hint something is fubar right?

 

[Pete]

2048 / 32 = 64 Threads
32 Compute Units * 64 Threads = 2048 Stream Processors
[...]
896 / 14 = 64 Threads
14 Compute Units * 64 Threads = 896 Stream Processors

Not sure what's the point of showing me that 8 / 4 = 2, so 2 * 4 = 8. We know that * is the opposite of /.

4 SIMDs per SC or CU * 32 Threads = 128 Threads
18 SC or CU *128 Threads = 2304 (Stream Processors) *
800MHz = 1.8TFsp same as SONY spec.

4 SIMDs per SC or CU * 16 Threads (32 from VG) = 64 Threads
18 SC or CU * 64 Threads = 1152 (Stream Processors) *
800MHz * 2 = 1.843200TFsp same as SONY spec.

I ... what? Why did you multiply the second by 2 and not the first? Do you know what the 2 stands for? Your label-fu is weak.

You pick one!

Fine, I will: CU. Stop saying "SC or CU." AFAIK, AMD switched to CU when GCN arrived, over 2 years ago.

How about this one.

4 SIMDs per SC or CU * 16 (not the pages & pages of data about SIMD-64wide) = 64 Threads
12 SC or CU * 64 Threads = 768 (Stream Processors) *
800MHz * 2 = 1.228800TFsp I think that worked too.

Yes, 64 threads per CU works, because that's the GCN architecture as we know it. If your "think" means you're unsure of your math, stop using exclamation points when you post. If it's sarcasm, can it.

And "pages & pages of data about SIMD-64wide": here at B3D or elsewhere? Link, please?

It's not how you get their it's how you finish. It's finished!!!

B3D isn't Mortal Kombat. Ease up on the attitude.

Again, can you provide links for your idea that PS4 has 2x and XBN has 4x the ALUs per CU? All I've found is "768 threads" for XBN, which is in line with GCN as we know it: 12 CUs * (4 SIMDs / CU) * (16 "threads" / SIMD) = 768 "threads". If we replace "threads" with what they actually are, FMADD ALUs, we get 768 FMADDs * (2 FLOPs / FMADD) * 800MHz ~= 1.2TFLOPS.

I can't find anything about PS4's SIMD width or ALU--er, thread count.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Remember, kids, this isn't a platform comparison thread. And always brush your teeth!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I ... what? Why did you multiply the second by 2 and not the first? Do you know what the 2 stands for? Your label-fu is weak.

That'll be two ops in a MADD I guess.

I can't find anything about PS4's SIMD width or ALU--er, thread count.

At this point I think this topic is irrelevant, certainly for the Orbis thread. We already have the specs. I think macberry's real point is that Durango as twice as much flops as we all think, which is a subject for the Durango thread obviously. I didn't really twig that until removing the Durango parts of these posts, so if macberry wants to try again in the correct thread, you can butt horns there.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Turn your back for 2 seconds and the thread goes to pot, even after suitable warning. Hold on while the clean-up crews get to work...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You have not told me why their is a " A SIMD executes a vector instruction on 64 threads at once in lockstep "

It's patently a mistake in their phrasing, because that doesn't tally with their own quote of 1.2 TFlops. You've made a comprehension mistake in dealing with fallible sources, hanging onto the wrong info and ignoring the right info.

That's understandable and forgiveable, but ignore warnings of posting OT, after being invited to post in the correct forum (Durango hardware discussion), derailing sane conversation with LOUD NOISES isn't. Goodbye.

 

[almighty]

I wold really like to know what they're doing with this 1Gb of RAM for the OS...

Seems an absurd amount of memory for a console OS, especially for one that doesn't really add much more capability over PS3's OS and that only uses ~50Mb.

Even Linux can be squeezed into a quarter of a Gb and offers full blown functionality.

 

[Grall]

It's totally absurd. Like, un-fraking-believably absurd. There's of course no way in hell a console (at least as we know them today) could ever need an entire gigabyte of RAM for OS functions. With a harddrive as standard, paging could easily be used if the user leaves a game and starts up other stuff, which would enable an "unlimited" amount of memory available. There's no genuine reason to reserve such a huge amount of memory.

 

[Cjail]

It's totally absurd. Like, un-fraking-believably absurd. There's of course no way in hell a console (at least as we know them today) could ever need an entire gigabyte of RAM for OS functions. With a harddrive as standard, paging could easily be used if the user leaves a game and starts up other stuff, which would enable an "unlimited" amount of memory available. There's no genuine reason to reserve such a huge amount of memory.

WiiU comes to mind.

Anyway how "demanding" is BSD?
Would 512Mb be more in line with it?

 

[patsu]

I wold really like to know what they're doing with this 1Gb of RAM for the OS...

Seems an absurd amount of memory for a console OS, especially for one that doesn't really add much more capability over PS3's OS and that only uses ~50Mb.

Even Linux can be squeezed into a quarter of a Gb and offers full blown functionality.

Assuming the article is accurate, it will depend on what they mean by system/OS memory. If the non-games's memory budget is inside that 1GB, then it may be ok. iOS was able to run all its apps and OS inside 1GB anyway.

 

[almighty]

Assuming the article is accurate, it will depend on what they mean by system/OS memory. If the non-games's memory budget is inside that 1GB, then it may be ok. iOS was able to run all its apps and OS inside 1GB anyway.

I wonder if its due to being able to play a game demo while its downloading feature they talked about?

Maybe a cache or buffer?

 

[MrFox]

WiiU comes to mind.

Anyway how "demanding" is BSD?
Would 512Mb be more in line with it?

It's not like 7GB is that much smaller than 7.5GB, would it make a big difference in games?

If they want a responsive OS, and the ability to open a browser while the game is running, multiple services including video chat overlay, background downloading and install, and guaranteeing the HDD streaming performance to developers... I think they need 1GB. Sure the Kernel and apps have a small footprint, but there's a big advantage in having lots of ram for buffers and caches.

They need an OS that will still be useful in 6-7 years.

 

[patsu]

I wonder if its due to being able to play a game demo while its downloading feature they talked about?

Maybe a cache or buffer?

It will certainly be interesting to see how Sony work around the loading/caching problem for both Gaikai and BR games.

I *think* Vita OS is 256MB. It runs 1 app at a time and switches between the suspended apps rather quickly (with 4GB Flash). On PS4, the design space will be much bigger, they can pretty much do "anything". It's difficult to guess their exact approach.

 

[ERP]

WiiU comes to mind.

Anyway how "demanding" is BSD?
Would 512Mb be more in line with it?

The memory amount has little or nothing to do with which core OS is used. I think we can probably thank windows for conflating the concept of core OS with that of shell and associated paraphernalia.
Core OS's just provide services and host applications, they are generally small, the big bits are all the visual eye candy.
There are some fairly large buffers on the graphics side, but however much is reserved will come down to the Shell and the applications they expect to be running in that reserved space.
Look at the sorts of memory in a modern tablet and the sorts of applications that allows for and 1 or more Gigabytes starts to not sound all that far fetched.

 

[Gradthrawn]

I wonder if its due to being able to play a game demo while its downloading feature they talked about?

Maybe a cache or buffer?

I doubt it. There were 2 features talked about. One is the full demo for everything, available immediately. That was most certainly a long term goal and based on Gaikai (so the demo is streaming, not downloading). The other was playing the game while its downloading. And based on the Japanese Cerny interview, that feature appears to be based on grouping the game's data into chunks, and trying to get the smallest piece necessary to start the game downloaded as quickly as possible. I imagine that will still be a few gigs, at a minimum, however. Probably not as quick as some people are hoping for. In either case, there would be little reason for a game to use system reserved memory as a "buffer", when it already has full access to the rest of the unreserved memory.

 

[KSterson]

"share" datas will certainly stay in the main ram instead of transfering it directly to the HDD. I think it's the right decision since you want your drive dedicated for some other things, like streaming assets, specially in some type of games. HDD may well be a relative bottleneck in sandbox like GTA. Hopefully lots of ram will help, but the disk will still remain a very important part. I think optical drives will be kind of useless now, after install.

 

[patsu]

I doubt it. There were 2 features talked about. One is the full demo for everything, available immediately. That was most certainly a long term goal and based on Gaikai (so the demo is streaming, not downloading). The other was playing the game while its downloading. And based on the Japanese Cerny interview, that feature appears to be based on grouping the game's data into chunks, and trying to get the smallest piece necessary to start the game downloaded as quickly as possible. I imagine that will still be a few gigs, at a minimum, however. Probably not as quick as some people are hoping for. In either case, there would be little reason for a game to use system reserved memory as a "buffer", when it already has full access to the rest of the unreserved memory.

Off the top of my head...

I am thinking the progressive download feature will be used mostly for "lighter" games. If they stick with the normal HDD download cache approach (so that the solution can work on other devices as well), then the game may not use streaming at the same time. At least not in the general sense.

There is a chance they still use custom game demoes, as opposed to full game streaming. For custom demoes, I think progressive download will be applicable immediately as well.

Full AAA-type game progressive download is also ok. But I reckon I will wait for the entire thing to download in the background, before embarking on a long in-game experience. Your mileage may vary.

Full game streaming demo or game may required user $$$ to sustain, like the Full BR game demo in PS+.

 

[Cjail]

The memory amount has little or nothing to do with which core OS is used. I think we can probably thank windows for conflating the concept of core OS with that of shell and associated paraphernalia.
Core OS's just provide services and host applications, they are generally small, the big bits are all the visual eye candy.
There are some fairly large buffers on the graphics side, but however much is reserved will come down to the Shell and the applications they expect to be running in that reserved space.
Look at the sorts of memory in a modern tablet and the sorts of applications that allows for and 1 or more Gigabytes starts to not sound all that far fetched.

Thanks.
BTW your answer is far more sophisticated than my question.
And anyway I never said that 1GB reserved for the OS is unreasonable, it's just in net contrast to what DF said and I trust DF more.

 

[Gradthrawn]

Off the top of my head...

I am thinking the progressive download feature will be used mostly for "lighter" games. If they stick with the normal HDD download cache approach (so that the solution can work on other devices as well), then the game may not use streaming at the same time. At least not in the general sense.

I think its possible progressive installs (I'm saying installs since it will likely apply to disc and download games) will be encouraged by both Sony and MS for all games. In fact, it may be mandated by MS to improve the user experience if games can't run directly off disc as the rumors suggest (not the online required rumors, but the XDK screen grab based ones that state that req).

There is a chance they still use custom game demoes, as opposed to full game streaming. For custom demoes, I think progressive download will be applicable immediately as well.

That's a good point. Progressive download + custom demos (which are obviously much smaller than the full game) makes for a very nice combo and minimal start time. And you don't need a streaming game service infrastructure ready to handle that. I think standard custom demos like what we have now will probably continue to be the norm until both MS and Sony mandate otherwise (and have the supporting infrastructure/services in place).

Full AAA-type game progressive download is also ok. But I reckon I will wait for the entire thing to download in the background, before embarking on a long in-game experience. Your mileage may vary.

I'd rather dive right in as soon as possible. If I've got FFXV queued up, I don't want to wait for 50GB to start! Actually, what I really want is to be able to order the retail disc copy (a nice CE, for example). and be immediately entitled to the digital version which pre-downloads and pre-installs ready for release date (ala Steam) while the physical copy ships. I'd love to see that as an optional feature in exchange for tying retail disc to my network ID along with online activation.

Full game streaming demo or game may required user $$$ to sustain, like the Full BR game demo in PS+.

I'd be okay with that, especially if it had broad availability across first and third party releases.

 

[keenism]

1GB may seem excessive, hell I remember linux for IRC and FTP servers on my original xbox's 64MB(?) and it did pretty decent. Perhaps they aren't even using it all and its in the spirit of "future proofing"...but it will always easy to reclaim that RAM if not used down the road but impossible to add more once games are using it...